RESEARCHES 



INTO 



THE ORIGIN AND AFFINITY 



OF 



THE PRINCIPAL LANGUAGES 



OF 



ASIA AND EUROPE. 



BY 



LIEUTENANT COLONEL VANS KENNEDY, 



OF THE BOMBAY MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT. 



Cum remotae Genticm Origines historiam transcendant, Lixgu-e nobis praestant veterum 
monumentorum vicem. ieifrnitri Opera, torn. iv. p. 186. 



LONDON: 

FR1NTED FOR 

LONGMAN, REES, ORME, BROWN, AND GREEN, 

PATERNOSTER-ROW. 

1828. 




V 



Un Homme de Lettres, cel^bre, grand ennemi des Etymologies, a dit qu'il falloit fitre sans raison 
pour douter que pain vint de pants .• mais si cette Etymologie n'est point trompeuse, 1' Art Etymologique 
n'est point trompeur, puisque toutes les Etymologies qui le composent et que nous donnerons, seront 
aussi sures que celle-la ; qu'elles ne consisteront egalement que dans des comparaisons de mots, ou il 
seroit aussi impossible de voir ce qu'on y voudroit voir, que de ne pas y voir ce qui y est. 

Monde Primitif, torn. iii. p. 35. 



Londok t 

Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, 

New- Street- Square. 






! 



PREFACE. 



It is much to be regretted that all writers who have entered into 
etymological discussions, or who have employed etymology as the 
medium of other researches, should have permitted their judgments 
to be guided and influenced by some favourite hypothesis. For, how- 
ever anxious an author may be to discover truth, still, if his mind 
be occupied by preconceived opinions, it is impossible for him to 
avoid giving more attention and more force to such circumstances as 
support these opinions, than to such as oppose them. Too many 
writers, also, in conducting an argument respecting the origin and 
affinity of nations, or even respecting their idolatry, have indulged 
in such absurdity of etymologies, and such mis-selection and per- 
version of authorities, as must render their love of truth extremely 
questionable. The ridicule, therefore, that is thrown on etymology, 
and the distrust with which it is received as proof, are the natural 
consequences of its having been employed so improperly. But, as 
it is illogical to argue from the abuse to the use, no work ought to 
be condemned on mere inspection of its titlepage, because erroneous 
methods have been adopted in the previous discussion of the same 
subject. 

The following Researches, also, whatever other defects may be 
attributable to them, are at least free from the spirit of hypothesis. 

a 2 



i v PREFACE. 

For, having occasion to compile a Maratha dictionary, I amused 
myself, while collecting materials for that work, in noting down the 
Sanscrit words which I recognised as belonging to any language with 
which I was acquainted ; and it was not until I had collected five 
hundred such words, that I began to enquire into the causes which 
could have introduced them into five distinct languages. Until then 
I had acquiesced in the correctness of the usual opinions entertained 
respecting the origin and affinity of languages, although doubts of 
their justness had often occurred to me. But, on further examining 
the subject, I found that none of the systems which had been proposed 
could adequately explain the causes of that intimate connection which 
must have existed, at some remote period, between a people speaking 
Sanscrit and the ancestors of the Greeks, Romans, and Goths. It 
was, therefore, necessary to discover some more probable and satis- 
factory explanation of so remarkable a circumstance, and I accordingly 
stated the conclusions to which its investigation had led me, in a paper 
which I laid before the Literary Society of Bombay, in November, 
1822. This paper, however, I afterwards withdrew, as it occurred to 
me that neither its limits allowed the subject to be fully discussed, 
nor had I myself obtained all the information respecting it which was 
requisite. For I conceive it incumbent on every writer to ascertain, 
as far as possible, what may have been previously published on the 
topic which he intends to discuss. But the want of books prevented 
me, for some time, from having it in my power to enlarge and improve 
the paper just mentioned in the manner that I wished. Having at 
length, however, made myself, I believe, sufficiently acquainted with 
the principal opinions which prevail respecting the origin and affinity 
of languages, I now venture to lay the following Researches before 
the public. 



PREFACE. v 

The original object of this work was merely to exhibit the re- 
markable affinity which exists between the Greek, Latin, Persian, 
Gothic, and Sanscrit languages, and to explain the causes which had, 
in my opinion, produced it. But, on further consideration, it appeared 
to me that neither of these points could be satisfactorily demonstrated, 
until the prevailing hypothesis respecting the existence of a primitive 
tongue, and respecting the origin of the Greeks, Romans, and Goths, 
had been first examined, and refuted. I have, in consequence, been 
obliged not only to enter into a review of these subjects on which so 
much has been already written, but, also, in considering them, to 
differ in opinion, less or more, from every author by whom they have 
been previously discussed. But no person has hitherto applied a 
competent knowledge of Arabic, Persian, and Sanscrit to etymological 
purposes, and from new data, therefore, it may be permitted to draw 
new conclusions. 

One writer, indeed, Dr. A. Murray, in his History of European 
Languages^ has pretended to an acquaintance with Sanscrit and Per- 
sian ; but the very erroneous judgment of the origin and nature of 
these languages which he has expressed, evinces that his knowledge 
of them must have been extremely superficial. He has himself, at 
the same time, admitted that he had not the Sanscrit language com- 
pletely before him* ; nor was it possible that he could, as no Sanscrit 
dictionary was then published. But Persian was perfectly accessible 
in grammars, dictionaries, and editions of works containing together 
the original text and its translation ; and the ignorance, therefore, 
of this language betrayed by Dr. Murray is altogether inexcusable. 
It is not, however, so much the errors contained in this work, as 
the dogmatic tone in which the opinions are expressed, that are 

* Hist, of European Languages, vol. ii. p. 381. 



v i PREFACE. 

particularly censurable. For nothing but the most indisputable proofs 
could warrant such positive assertions as these: — "The Medes, Per- 
sians, and Indians spoke the same language. They were allied to 
one another in the degree of the Ionic and Doric Greeks. This 
important fact is established, 1. by the close resemblance of the 
ancient Median names to the Sanscrit in form and sense ; 2. by the 
perfect coincidence of the remains of the Zend with the Sanscrit ; 
3. by the easy derivation of almost every modern Persian word (the 
Arabic terms excepted) from the Sanscrit.* .... The modern Persic 
is Sanscrit, humbled and corrupted in a high degree. It is simple, 
elegant, perspicuous ; but, at the same time, not capable of greater 
powers of expression, than those which genius may impart to any 
dialect, however defective by nature."]* .... Ocular inspection, assisted 
by such knowledge as the comparison requires, demonstrates the 
ancient identity of the Sanscrit and Chaldee letters.""]: That is, an 
alphabet composed of fifty-two letters was derived from one con- 
sisting of twenty-two letters only ! The reputation acquired by Dr. 
Murray as a philologist has induced me to notice his work here, in 
order to explain the reason why I have scarcely ever quoted it in 
the following pages, either for the purpose of approbation or refutation. 
But for the first of these purposes it is much too erroneous ; and, with 
regard to the latter, I perfectly agree in opinion with Pinkerton, that 
to confute absolute nonsense is surely as ridiculous as to write it. That 
the reader, however, may not consider these remarks as too harsh, 
I will leave it to him to decide whether that philologist is entitled 
to any attention who, in the very commencement of his work, makes 
such an assertion as this : — " By a careful study of the Anglo- Saxon, 



* Hist, of European Languages, vol. ii. p. 222. 
f Ibid. p. 391. 



X Ibid. p. 227. 



PREFACE. v -« 



Visigothic, and the elder English writers, more knowledge may be 
obtained of the original structure of the Greek, Latin, Celtic, or 
Sanscrit, than the deepest erudition can possibly supply ! ! ".* 

With respect to the conclusions contained in this work, which are 
deduced from etymological premises, the principles on which they 
depend are sufficiently explained in the Second Part. I shall here, 
therefore, merely observe that, in comparing together the words of 
any two languages, I conceive that correspondence in signification 
and in sound, subject to such slight permutations in the letters and 
slight contractions of the syllables as are proved to be admissible on 
clear and fixed principles, are the only criteria by which the identity 
of the words compared can be determined. These Researches, there- 
fore, differ materially from other etymological works : because they 
contain no wearisome discussions respecting the changes which words 
may have undergone in passing from one language into another ; nor 
any tedious reasoning to prove that some particular word in one 
language, notwithstanding dissimilarity of sound and meaning, may 
still be identical with some other term of another language. For 
the Comparative Table inserted in Part II. is the piece justificative of 
the whole work ; and as all the words compared together in it cor- 
respond in meaning, except in a few instances which I have noted 
at the bottom of the page, the reader, if unacquainted with the lan- 
guages compared, has merely to determine whether the agreement 
of the words in sound is sufficient to prove their identity. Should 
he, then, be convinced that 900 Sanscrit words have passed into five 

* Hist, of European Languages, vol. i. p. 1 7. 

No words can better characterise Dr. Murray's work, than those which he has himself 
applied to Mr. Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology: — " A fanciful work, of which 
the etymological -part is false, the historical dubious, and the theoretical imaginary" — Vol. ii. 
p. 223. 



v iij PREFACE. 

distinct languages, he will be the better enabled to form an opinion 
respecting the justness of the remarks contained in the following 
pages. 

The origin and affinity of languages ascend far beyond the times 
of which any information has been preserved by ancient writers. 
But it seems undeniable that, with respect to the origin and early 
state of nations, the credibility of the accounts given by different 
authors must depend on their relative antiquity ; and it is impossible 
to understand how Zonaras, in the twelfth century after Christ, could 
be as well acquainted with the ancient situation of the world as 
Herodotus, who flourished 450 years before Christ. The incorrectness, 
therefore, of the following remarks of Mr. Bryant must be self evident: 
— " It may be said that the writers to whom I chiefly appeal are, in 
great measure, dry and artless, without any grace and ornament to 
recommend them. They were, likewise, posterior to the Helladians ; 
consequently, farther removed from the times of which they treat. 
To the first objection I answer, that the most dry and artless historians 
are, in general, the most authentic. They who colour and embellish 
have the least regard for the truth. In respect to priority, it is a 
specious claim ; but attended with no validity. When a gradual 
darkness has been overspreading the world, it requires as much time 
to emerge from the cloud, as there passed when we were sinking into 
it : so that they who come later may enjoy a greater portion of light, 
than those who preceded them by ages. Besides, it is to be considered, 
that the writers to whom I chiefly appeal, lived in parts of the world 
which gave them great advantages. The whole theology of Greece 
was derived from the East. We cannot, therefore, but in reason 
suppose, that Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Tatianus 
of Assyria, Lucianus of Samosata, Cyril of Jerusalem, Porphyry of 



PREFACE. [ x 



Syria, Proclus of Lycia, Philo of Biblus, Strabo of Amasa, Pausanias of 
Cappadocia, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, must know more upon this subject 
than any native Helladian. The like may be said of Diodorus, Jose- 
phus, Cedrenus, Syncellus, Zonaras, Eustathius ; and numberless more. 
These had the archives of ancient* temples, to which they could 
apply : and had traditions more genuine than ever reached Greece. 
And though they were posterior theirselves, they appeal to authors far 
prior to any Helladians : and their works are crowded with extracts 
from the most curious and the most ancient f histories. Such were the 
writings of Sanction iathon, Berosus, Nicholaus Damascenus, Mocus, 
Mnaseas, Hieronymus iEgyptius, Apion, Manethon : from whom 
Abydenus, Apollodorus, Asclepiades, Artapanus, Philastrius, bor- 
rowed largely. We are beholden to Clemens;}: and Eusebius, for 
many evidences from writers, long since lost ; even Eustathius and 
Tzetzes have resources, which are now no more." § On the contrary, the 
justness of the following observations of Lord Bolingbroke can scarcely 
be contested : — " There is a fourth class, of much less use than these, 
but of much greater name. Men of the first rank in learning, and 
to whom the whole tribe of scholars bow with reverence. A man 
must be as indifferent as I am to common censure or approbation, to 
avow a thorough contempt for the whole business of these learned 
lives ; for all the researches into antiquity, for all the systems of 
chronology and history, that we owe to the immense labours of a 
Scaliger, a Bochart, a Petavius, an Usher, and even a Marsham. The 

" * See Philo Biblius apud Euseb. Prsef. Evang. 1. i. c. 10. p. 32. He mentions applying 
to a great number of authors, in Phenicia. 

"f IToAA>)v e$;epevvr)<rct[j.evos uXrjv, ovw tyjv irctp 'E;\X»]<n. — Philo, apud Euseb. Prcef. Evang., 
1. i. c. ix. p. 32. 

" % Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., 1. i, p. 356." 

§ Analysis of Ancient Mythology, vol. i. p. 146. et seq. 

a 



x PREFACE. 

same materials are common to them all ; but these materials are 
few, and there is a moral impossibility that they should ever have 
more. They have combined these into every form that can be given 
to them : they have supposed, they have guessed, they have joined 
disjointed passages of different authors, and broken traditions of un- 
certain originals, of various people, and of centuries remote from one 
another as well as from ours. In short, that they might leave no 
liberty untaken, even a wild fantastical similitude of sounds has 
served to prop up a system. As the materials they have are few, 
so are the very best and such as pass for authentic extremely pre- 
carious ; as some of these learned persons themselves confess. Julius 
Africanus, Eusebius, and George the monk opened the principal 
sources of all this science ; but they corrupted the waters. Their 
point of view was to make profane history and chronology agree 
with sacred ; though the latter chronology is very far from being 
established with the clearness and certainty necessary to make it a 
rule. For this purpose, the ancient monuments that these writers 
conveyed to posterity, were digested by them according to the system 
they were to maintain : and none of these monuments were delivered 
down in their original form, and genuine purity. The dynasties of 
Manetho, for instance, are broken to pieces by Eusebius, and such 
fragments of them as suited his design are stuck into his work. 
We have, we know, no more of them. The Codex Alexandrinus we 
owe to George the monk. We have no other authority for it."* 

It is not, however, necessary for the object of this work, to enter 
into any discussion respecting ancient chronology : for I conceive 
that the poems of Homer are a fixed point in the history of all 
languages cognate with the Greek; and, consequently, in tracing their 

* Bolingbroke's Letters on the Study and Use of History, p. 6. et seq. 



PREFACE, x j 

affinity or the locality of the people who spoke them, it is not requisite 
to carry the research farther than two or three centuries beyond 
the time when Homer flourished. It is, also, precisely at this period 
that the traditional and historical notices preserved by ancient writers 
begin to assume a degree of credibility which entitles them to every 
attention. But in combining together these notices, and in drawing 
conclusions from them, I have confined myself to such as are con- 
tained in Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, 
and Pliny; but the authors on which I have principally depended 
are Herodotus and Strabo. Both these authors, I observe, are held 
in little or no estimation by the writers whose hypotheses I am 
under the necessity of refuting : but, after a most attentive ex- 
amination of the works of Herodotus and Strabo, I cannot under- 
stand on what grounds their authority can with any reason be 
questioned. At least before the accounts given by the most 
ancient historian now extant are thus disregarded, and those of 
such a writer as Justin received in preference, some sufficient cause 
ought to be assigned for adopting so singular a mode of weighing 
historical evidence. I presume, however, that the only solid grounds 
on which belief in human testimony can rest are the witness's dis- 
cernment, judgment, and knowledge of the subject attested; and, 
as it cannot be denied that Strabo * and Herodotus possessed these 
qualifications in an eminent degree, it must necessarily follow that 
they are the safest guides for determining, as far as it was then 
known, the actual state of the world 500 years B. G, and its sub- 
sequent changes. 

* Strabo flourished about A. D. 20 ; but the great attention and judgment with which he 
had consulted writers more ancient than himself, and had compared their accounts with 
what had actually come under his own observation, are evident in every page of his work. 

a 2 



x Ji PREFACE. 

I have thus endeavoured to conduct the etymological and historical 
discussions contained in these Researches on principles which appear 
to me to be incontrovertible : but I am well aware that the execution 
of a work is seldom, if ever, of equal excellence as the plan intended ; 
and I cannot, therefore, flatter myself that I have been able to avoid 
altogether the faults which I have observed and condemned in others. 
If, however, my reasoning and conclusions meet not with approbation, 
it will, perhaps, be admitted that I have contributed considerably to the 
further improvement of philology, not only by the new data which 1 have 
produced, but by condensing into a small compass the various opinions 
hitherto published respecting the origin and affinity of languages. But 
should any person be inclined to apply to this work the severe rules of 
criticism which seem to prevail at this day, I beg that, before he 
proceeds to judgment and execution, he will consider whether these 
words of Plutarch do not apply equally to philological as to historical 
researches, and, if so, whether they do not present a sufficient excuse 
for any errors or defects that may be found in the following pages : — 

T& pevToi (tvvtu^iv V7T0^e^X^f/.£vu 9 koci IvTooiav £^ ou tv p^o^ziptcv ouo otiteiav, aXXa 
pivuv re tcov ttoXXoov aai oieT7rctpuevct)v ev erepotg cuviovcrctv avctyvucr^oci uv, ra 

OVTt J/pVj TTQUTOV VTTO.pyj.lV KCtl jXOcXlCTTU TVjV TToXiV EVOOKlfAOV KOil QlhOY.Ct.'hOV KOU 

7roXvav9pco7rov, cog (3i&Xicev re Truvro^wntdv atpOovixv £%«", xou oora. rovg ygutpovTag 
StxcpevycvTci acaTVjpict pv^^S Z7rt(bocvecrTepciv siXvjtps ttio~tiv 9 67roXocy.Qavuv czkovi 
Kca SiotTrvvQuvopevoGf py\ ttoXXuv pv\V c&vuyrtoiiuv tvdv.q U7rooiootr] to spyov' Tjfzeig 
Se ftixpav oiKovpev 7toXiv. 



Bombay, 
1 5th January, 1827. 



CONTENTS. 



PART I. 
CHAPTER I. 

T r^ Pa S e 

Introductory Remarks , «„ l 

CHAPTER II. 
The Language of the Hebrews 12 

CHAPTER III. 
The Arabic Language 23 

CHAPTER IV. 
The Ancient Languages of Babylonia, Assyria, and Egypt 34 

CHAPTER V. 
On the Scythians 46 

CHAPTER VI. 
The Celtic Language 65 

CHAPTER VII. 
The Greek Language 86 

CHAPTER VIII. 
The Latin Language 107 

CHAPTER IX. 
On the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit Alphabetical Systems 122 

CHAPTER X. 
The German and English Languages , 136 



x i v CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XI. 
The Persian Language 159 

CHAPTER XII. 
The Sanscrit Language 193 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Concluding Remarks 214 



PART II. 

Grammatical and Etymological Illustrations 239 

List of Sanscrit Words which are found in the Greek, Latin, Persian, German, and 

English Languages 277 

Appendix, No. I. 

List of Sanscrit, Persian, and Arabic Words which occur in the Zend Vocabulary 

of Anquetil du Perron 313 

Appendix, No. II. 
List of Persian and Arabic Words which occur in the Pahlvi Vocabulary of 

Anquetil du Perron c 319 

Appendix, No. III. 
List of Pahlvi Words which are not contained in the Vocabulary of Anquetil du 
Perron, extracted from the Fourth Section of the Appendix to the Firhang 

Jihangiri «... , 323 

r 



PART I. 



N.B. In Oriental words written in Roman characters, the vowels and diphthongs are to 
be pronounced as in Italian, and the consonants as in English ; with exception of g, which 
is always to be pronounced hard, its soft sound being represented by j. 



RESEARCHES 

INTO 

THE ORIGIN AND AFFINITY 

OF 

THE PRINCIPAL LANGUAGES 



OF 



ASIA AND EUROPE. 



CHAP. I. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

The result of all speculations respecting the origin of language must 
be unsatisfactory, because no data exist from which any reasonable 
conclusion on the subject can be deduced. For no tribe of men has 
yet been discovered, however few in numbers or rude and miserable, 
that did not possess a language adapted to all the purposes and wants 
of its mode of life. It might, hence, be conjectured that speech was 
one "of the qualities which belonged to man from his original forma- 
tion. But, when it is considered that children learn the use of alpha- 
betical sounds with much difficulty, and that strangers can never 
acquire the proper pronunciation of a foreign language, it seems ne- 
cessarily to follow that, although the power of forming articulate 
sounds is inherent in man, still the converting such sounds into an in- 
telligible language depends entirely on association, imitation, and 
tuition. 

Admitting, therefore, the Mosaic account of the creation of man- 
kind, and supposing that the faculty and knowledge of speech were 
communicated to the first man and woman by the supreme Being, 

A 



2 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

nothing would seem more probable than the existence of a primitive 
language. Moses, also, relates that such actually prevailed during the 
earlier ages of the world, but he, at the same time, expressly declares 
that this uniformity of speech was destroyed by a miracle. If, conse- 
quently, the authority of Moses be admitted as proving the one point, 
it must be considered of equal validity with respect to the other ; 
because no other works now exist with which the narration of Moses 
might be compared, and by means of which any errors that may have 
occurred in it might be corrected. The whole, therefore, of the Book 
of Genesis must be held to be authentic, or the whole must be re- 
jected ; and that argument can deserve no attention which rests on a 
partial admission and a partial rejection of the contents of this book. 

But the following verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis prove, 
beyond the power of controversy to dispute, that the primitive lan- 
guage of mankind was totally destroyed. 

Verse 1. " And the whole earth was of one language and one 
speech." 

V. 6. " And the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have 
all one language." 

V. 7. ' ; Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, 
that they may not understand one another's speech." 

V. 9. " Therefore is the name of it called Babel ; because the Lord 
did there confound the language of all the earth." 

In the tenth chapter, also, of Genesis occur these verses ; — 

V. 5. " But these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their 
lands ; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." 

V. 20. " These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their 
tongues, in their countries and in their nations." 

V. 31. " These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their 
tongues, in their lands, after their nations."* 

* As there is not the slightest ambiguity in the original Hebrew, I cannot understand 
why the commentators on the Bible and other writers attempt to qualify or invalidate the 
positive testimony of these texts, and to retain the language of Adam and Eve in the family 
of Shem ; for, though the language of mankind was confounded, it is not said that the 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. g 

So far, therefore, as the authority of the Book of Genesis is ad- 
mitted, it must, at the same time, be admitted that the primitive 
speech of mankind was abolished, and various distinct languages 
created by the same power by whom the former was originally commu- 
nicated to mankind. 

Of this opinion was Sir William Jones, who has observed, — " that 
the language of Noah is lost irretrievably ;" yet he has endeavoured 
to establish " that the inhabitants of Asia, and, consequently, as it 
might be proved, of the whole earth, sprang from three branches of 
one stem." But in conducting this argument Sir William Jones has 
not been able to avoid inconsistency and self-contradiction. For in 
his fourth Anniversary Discourse he remarks, — " But a further com- 
parison between the two languages (Sanscrit and Arabic) is here un- 
necessary ; since in whatever light we view them, they seem totally 
distinct, and must have been invented by two different races of men." 
In the fifth Discourse — " If the ground work of the Western Turkish, 
when separated from the Persian and Arabic with which it is embel- 
lished, be a branch of the lost Oghuzian tongue, I can assert, with 
confidence, that it has not the least resemblance either to Arabic or 
Sanscrit, and must have been invented by a race of men wholly dis- 
tinct from the Arabs or Hindus." In his sixth Discourse, — "But 
without having recourse to other arguments, the composition of words 
in which the genius of the Persian delights, and which that of the 
Arabic abhors, is a decisive proof that the Parsi sprang from an Indian 
and not an Arabic stock." It hence appears that the languages of the 
three branches of one stem, the Sanscrit, Arabic, and Tartar have not 
the slightest affinity to each other, and differ so much that they must 
have been invented by distinct races of men. 

It is, therefore, impossible to reconcile Sir William Jones's conclu- 
sion with the premises from which it has been deduced ; because, as he 



knowledge which men at the time possessed was in any manner affected, and, consequently, 
the effect of this miracle extended no further than the causing this knowledge to be handed 
down to posterity, not in one single language, but in a variety of different dialects. 

B 2 



4 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

is perfectly correct in asserting that no resemblance exists between 
these languages, it must be obvious that dissimilar effects could not 
proceed from one and the same cause. If the Hindus, Arabs, and 
Tartars spoke the same language three thousand years ago, as Sir 
William Jones supposes, their ancestors, when they migrated from 
their native country, must either have preserved their mother-tongue, 
or adopted that of the country into which they migrated. In the latter 
case, other languages, besides this supposed primitive one, must have 
been in existence ; and it is directly contrary to the Mosaic history to 
imagine that the world remained without people and without lan- 
guages until a migration took place from Iran in the twelfth century 
before the Christian aera. In the other case, it is impossible that any 
material difference could have arisen between the Sanscrit and the 
Arabic ; for, there is every reason to believe, that the former was a 
written language at the time of this supposed migration, and it is in- 
contestable that Arabia was never conquered or occupied by a foreign 
race within the last three thousand years. Had, therefore, the Arabs 
and Hindus ever spoken the same tongue, no conceivable cause can be 
assigned for these two languages having become so radically dissimilar. 
They might have been considerably affected by the dialects of the 
countries into which these migrations are supposed to have proceeded, 
but they would have preserved the greatest part of the words of the 
parent language, and an indisputable resemblance in their grammatical 
structure. 

Similar remarks apply to the influence over the languages of Asia 
and Europe which some writers ascribe to migrations of Scythians. 
The earliest existing accounts, at the same time, of this people describe 
them as rude and unlettered, living in various independent tribes, and 
not united into one nation, and perfectly unacquainted with the 
learning and arts of civilized society. For Herodotus characterises 
the Scythians as the most ignorant of men, and every subsequent des- 
cription of them fully confirms this remark of Sir W. Jones. " Our 
first enquiry concerning the languages and letters of the Tartars 
presents us with a deplorable void, or with a prospect as barren and as 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 5 

dreary as that of their own deserts. The Tartars in general had no 
literature; (in this point all authorities appear to concur), the Turcs 
had no letters ; the Huns, according to Procopius, had not even heard 
of them." To derive, therefore, from the scanty and imperfect dialects 
of such a people the language of Homer or of the sacred books of the 
Hindus must be obviously so inconsistent with probability as to render 
the conjecture unworthy of the least credit. 

If, however, no affinity exists between Arabic, Sanscrit, and Tartar, 
and if all existing languages bear less or more relation to one or 
other of these tongues,* the non-existence of a primitive language 
seems sufficiently established. But the apparent simplicity resulting 
from the derivation of all languages from one common origin, and par- 
ticularly a mistaken opinion that the Mosaic account of the creation of 
mankind would receive confirmation from proving that this common 
origin was Hebrew, have led several writers into etymological re- 
searches, which, so far from producing conviction, have merely cast 
ridicule on the object of their studies. It cannot, however, be denied 
that cognate and identical terms occur in some languages, and the only 
error, therefore, of such writers consists in attempting to draw an 
universal conclusion from particular premises. But the attempt is 
equally hopeless in philology as in reasoning, and hence arises a 
complete disregard of every principle of language and pretended 
etymologies, which cannot be better described than in the words of 
Sir William Jones. " But I beg leave, as a philologer, to enter my 
protest against conjectural etymology in historical researches, and 
principally against the licentiousness of etymologists in transposing 
and inserting letters, in substituting at pleasure any consonant for 

* Such is the conclusion of Sir W. Jones, as explained in his Ninth Anniversary 
Discourse. But with respect to the Tartar, M. Klaproth observes, " Les Kalmouks sont 
une branche de la grande race Mongole. Plusieurs savans, meme dans des temps 
modernes, ont presque toujours confondu cette race avec les tribus turques (tatares) ; mais 
elle en differe totalement par la langue et par la physionomie. — Voyage au Caucase, vol. i. 
p. 68. 

As, however, the Mongol language bears no affinity to Sanscrit or Arabic, its distinct 
existence does not affect the argument, but only adds one more to the number of original 
languages. 



Q INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

another of the same order, and in totally disregarding the vowels : for 
such permutations few radical words would be more convenient than 
cus or cush, since dentals being changed for dentals, and palatials for 
palatials, it instantly becomes coot, goose, and by transposition, duck, 
all water birds, and evidently symbolical ; it next is the goat wor- 
shipped in Egypt, and, by a Metathesis, the dog adored is an emblem 
of Sirius, or more obviously, a cat, not the domestic animal, but a sort 
of ship, and the catos or great sea-fish of the Dorians."* 

But the most singular manner of explaining the origin of language 
is contained in the posthumous work of the late Professor A. Murray. 
" The nations" (observes Dr. Murray), " from the confines of China 
to the Atlantic ocean, from Novaya Zemlia to Africa, speak different 
dialects of a language, of which the Teutonic is the simplest form ex- 
isting." To prove this position, he proceeds to state that the elements 
of all languages may be resolved into these nine syllables, — ag or 
wag, bag, dwag, gwag, or cwag, lag, or hlag, mag, nag, or hnag, rag or 
hrag, and swag, — " These nine words (lie adds) are the foundations 
of language, on which an edifice has been erected of a more wonderful 
and useful kind, than any which have exercised human ingenuity." f — 
But he remarks with justice, " that taste and philosophy will receive 
with aversion these rude syllables ;" and had he not been misled by a 
favorite hypothesis the slightest reflection must have convinced him 
that such words could never have been " the base of that medium, 
through which Homer, and Milton, and Newton have delighted or 
illumined mankind." For it must be obvious that if Ag had upwards 
of two hundred significations (as ascribed to it by Dr. Murray,) it must 
have been perfectly impossible for the person addressed to understand 
in what sense the speaker intended to use it, and consequently that such 
words could never have fulfilled the purposes of speech. Dr. Murray, 
also, states that each of these words is a verb and name for a species of 
action, consequently, according to the principles of all languages, these 
words were incapable of being compounded together ; and thus, what- 

* SirW. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 139. 

f Murray's History of the European Languages, p. 28. et seq. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 7 

ever prefixes or affixes might have been added to them for the purpose 
of modifying their signification, no progress could have been made in 
the formation of language. For the radical must have still continued 
the same, and however the form might have been altered, it could 
never be made to convey any further meaning than a modification of 
the idea originally attached to it. 

On Dr. Murray's hypothesis, therefore, language must have always 
remained in the rudest and most imperfect state ; were it even ad- 
mitted that any tribe of savages could ever have possibly carried 
on the slightest intercourse with only nine radical words. But the 
opinion, on which the whole of his system is founded, that particular 
terms were derived from general, and not general terms from par- 
ticular *, is in direct contradiction to the internal evidence that every 
language affords. For the most cursory examination of different lan- 
guages will shew that nouns, or the names of sensible objects, form their 
basis ; and from the example of children and of persons speaking a 
foreign language with which they are imperfectly acquainted, it is ob- 
vious that such words are sufficient, with the assistance of gestures, to 
communicate many of the wishes or wants of man. They are at the 
same time the only parts of speech which possess an independent sig- 
nification ; and it is therefore surprising that Dr. Murray did not per- 
ceive that, if his nine elements of language were each " a verb and 
name for a species of action," it necessarily followed that as action 
could not be exerted without an agent and an object, these words could 
not have been invented without the previous existence of others to 
which they applied. The very examples that Dr. Murray gives, — 
" the tree grows, ihejire bums, the stone hurts, the plant poisons," prove 
that the verbs could have no determinate meaning without the sub- 
stantives ; and it is, therefore, much more probable that a savage would 

* " In short, our knowledge of language and man will warrant us to infer, that such 
words as cave, tree, or river, are from general terms : a cave is a hollow ; a tree is a grower; 
a river is a runner ; and it further appears, that the words hollow, grow, and run, are from 
others still more general. The actual experience of savages always must extend to the 
qualities of the external world, and the natural feelings."! Ibid. p. 179. 



8 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

first invent a name for the sensible object, the tree, and that after 
having observed the gradual growth of a plant he would then and not 
before invent some term to express this process. Such a verb in par- 
ticular, as burns presupposes the previous observation of the sensible 
object which produced this effect, and this object would no doubt 
receive a name before a general term was found to express the sens- 
ation which it caused. 

If, therefore, language was invented by man the theory of its form- 
ation proposed by Adam Smith is certainly the most clear and satis- 
factory. But this theory, it is evident, can apply to one people only, 
for it attempts not to explain the causes which have occasioned that 
variety of names which are given by different nations to one and the 
same object. This difference the Mosaic History ascribes to a mira- 
culous interposition of the supreme Being ; and had mankind ever 
spoken only one language, such a miracle seems alone adequate to ac- 
count for there now no longer existing any trace of this primitive tongue 
in the different languages of the world. — For no instance occurs of a 
language which has once existed becoming entirely extinct ; and conse- 
quently, had this primitive tongue remained in use, some identical terms, 
and particularly some similarity of grammatical structure, must still be 
discoverable in every dialect of Asia and Europe. But not a single word 
or grammatical inflexion, as far as I am aware, has ever been discovered, 
or can be discovered which exists equally in Sanscrit, Arabic, and Tartar. 
— Apply this test to the various languages that have been derived from 
them, and it will be immediately observed, that although similar words 
may be found in all of them, still every term that is contained in each 
cannot be traced through all the dialects that belong to the same family. 
In all such examinations the etymologist is obliged to confess that the 
more the subject is investigated the more improbable becomes the con- 
jecture, that all languages have been derived from one and the same 
origin. For at every step that he prosecutes his researches, this sup- 
posed identity gradually diminishes until it entirely disappears long 
before he attains the end of his pursuit. But he finds, without the 
least research, numerous words in all known languages which bear no 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 9 

resemblance to each other, and the etymon of which it is impossible to 
discover, or to trace to a parent tongue. It has been conjectured that 
this world is composed of the fragments of an older world ; but the sup- 
position applies with still greater force to language ; for in most of the 
various dialects * now existing in Asia and Europe, the widely-scat- 
tered remains of some more ancient tongues are so obvious, that they 
cannot escape the most superficial observation. The nations, it is true, 
which spoke these dialects have long perished, and their name has not 
been preserved by history ; but language, the most indisputable of all 
testimony, still declares that they once existed. 

It cannot, however, be denied that cognate and identical terms, and 
similarity of grammatical structure, are discoverable in several lan- 
guages ; and this affinity, if it does not prove the derivation of one 
from the other, must at least establish that they were all derived from 
some one common source. The object, therefore, of the following 
Researches is not to investigate the origin of speech, or to attempt to 
reduce the various languages of the world to one primitive tongue ; 
but merely to exhibit the striking affinity that exists between the 
Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Persian, and Gothic languages. As, however, 
mere etymological and grammatical disquisitions can afford little in- 
terest, I have also entered into an enquiry respecting the causes to 
which this affinity ought to be attributed. The relation that these lan- 
guages bear to each other has already excited much attention ; but I am 
not aware that any person has yet undertaken to investigate the subject 
fully, or to support his opinions by any extended list of the similar 
words that occur in them. As, therefore, the only satisfactory proof 
in all etymological enquiries is identity of terms, I now produce a col- 
lection of nine hundred Sanscrit words which exist either in Greek, 
Latin, Persian, German, or English, f All these words are primitives or 

* There would seem to have been no foreign terms in Arabic previous to the birth of 
Muhammad, or, perhaps, to the accession of the Sassanian dynasty. 

f Of this number, 339 are Greek, 319 Latin, 263 Persian, 162 German, and 251 
English. Thirty-one belong to all these languages ; 527 to Greek and Latin, omitting 
the words common to both; and 182 to German and English, without including those 
common to both or to the other languages. 

C 



10 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 

uncom pounded ; and when it is recollected that these form but a small 
proportion of the words contained in any language *, it must appear 
the more surprising that so many of the Sanscrit primitives can 
still be discovered, after the lapse of ages, in languages now so widely 
separated. 

But since so many learned men have maintained, and still maintain, 
that Hebrew is the parent of all languages, it became necessary to dis- 
cuss at some length the correctness of an opinion which is in complete 
opposition to the conclusions which I have been led to form. For, until 
this point is determined, it is obvious that all etymological enquiries must 
fail to produce a satisfactory result. This opinion, however, might be 
ascribed to ignorance or an imperfect knowledge of oriental languages, 
and thus any refutation of it might appear superfluous. But as these 
writers understood Greek, and still persisted in deriving the most 
copious of all tongues from one the most scanty and imperfect, some 
enquiry whether any affinity can possibly exist between Hebrew and 
other languages appeared indispensable. 

The two following chapters, therefore, contain the remarks on the 
nature of the Hebrew and Arabic languages which have occurred to 
me : and if I have succeeded in showing that their influence was re- 
stricted to Arabia, Syria, and the colonies of Phenicia, the reader will 
be the better prepared to enter upon the immediate object of these 
Researches. The origin, indeed, of nations is buried in obscurity ; 
but the filiation and migrations of the people who composed them 
may still be traced in some measure by the means of language. Ety- 
mological enquiries, however, are in general considered of little or no 
value, and at best are treated as ingenious speculations of no utility. 
But the celebrity of the Greeks and Romans, the high antiquity of the 
Chaldeans and Hindus, and the proud superiority of the descendants 

* Of this circumstance an opinion may be formed by observing, that the number of 
Greek primitives collected by MM. du Port Royal amount to 2200 only ; that the Latin 
primitives contained in the Index Etymologicus of Gesner's Thesaurus amount to 2400 ; 
and that of the 2000 or 2500 Sanscrit verbal roots, 566 only have distinct meanings. But 
I am not aware of the exact number of simple words contained in Sanscrit, though it is not 
likely that it exceeds that of the Greek or Latin. 



INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. n 

of the Gothic people, may, it is presumed, confer some interest on 
any investigation that relates to the origin of these nations and of 
their languages. Nor can an enquiry fail to excite some curiosity that 
searches for the causes which have occasioned identical terms to be 
preserved, after a lapse of more than three thousand years, on the 
banks of the Ganges and the Thames, 



c 2 



12 



CHAR II. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 

The writers who have contended that the Hebrew was the primitive 
tongue of mankind, from which all other languages have been derived, 
have not explained the manner in which this derivation was effected. 
They were no doubt embarrassed by the texts of Genesis before 
quoted ; because, even if the language of Adam and Eve was preserved 
in the family of Shem, still the other descendants of Noah were 
deprived of it, and thus their respective tongues could bear no affinity 
to Hebrew. But, without insisting on these texts, no criteria are 
better adapted for ascertaining the correctness of an etymological 
conjecture than Geography, Chronology, and History. An examin- 
ation, therefore, of the Jewish history will at once show whether or 
not the Hebrew ever exerted any influence over the languages of Asia 
and Europe. 

The only account that exists of this people is contained in the Old 
Testament and in the works of Josephus. But the latter appears to 
have possessed no other materials for his relation of the early history 
of the Jews than the Old Testament. From this book alone, therefore, 
is derived all that is known of the Hebrews.* To its authenticity, 
either in the whole or in particular parts, I am aware that numerous 
objections have been made, and the slightest examination of it shows 
that it answers very imperfectly the purposes of history ; for there is 
no fixed asra specified in it to which the events related can be 

* Except with respect to their origin, for this is mentioned by several ancient writers. 
Diodorus Siculus, for instance, observes, " It is said, that some Egyptians proceeding from 
their own country gave rise to the Jewish people, who live between Arabia and Syria; 
hence, ancient and hereditary usage has established among them the custom of circumcising 
their boys, which they derived from the Egyptians," lib. i. c. 28. But Josephus has col- 
lected into his tract against Apion a variety of passages from ancient authors on this 
point, which he endeavours to refute. 



THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 13 

referred, nor are there any uninterrupted genealogies or lists of 
kings which could in some measure remedy this defect ; but a system 
of chronology has been framed from the data that it affords, which, 
however questionable in some points, brings down the Jewish history 
with sufficient accuracy from the creation of the world to about 400 
years before Christ. 

The father, however, of the Hebrew people was not born until 1948 
years after the creation, and 2060 years before Christ ; and his departing 
out of his country and from his kindred was occasioned by the express 
command of God. Abraham, after some journeying, finally fixed his 
abode in the land of Canaan ; and there he and his family remained for 
216 years, until his grandson Jacob, at the age of 130 years, removed 
into Egypt. It is to be particularly remarked, that at this period " All 
the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his 
loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six ; 
and the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two 
souls : all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, 
were threescore and ten."* For in the 12th Chapter of Exodus, 37., 
it is stated, that the children of Israel who departed out of Egypt after 
their bondage was " about 600,000 on foot that were men, beside 
children," 

In the same chapter also of Exodus, 40, 41., it is said, " Now the 
sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years. 
And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even the selfsame 
day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from 
Egypt." I cannot, therefore, discover on what grounds the received 
system of chronology assumes that the bondage in Egypt lasted only 
21 5 years. For these texts are confirmed by the following : " And he 
(the Lord) said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall 
be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them ; and 
they shall afflict them 400 years." Genesis, xv. 13. ( " And God 
spake on this wise, that his (Abraham's) seed should sojourn in a 

* Genesis, xlvi. 26, 27. 



14 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 

strange land ; and that they should bring them into bondage, and 
entreat them evil 400 years." Acts, vii. 6.* 

The children of Israel, however, were not permitted to proceed im- 
mediately into the promised land, but were obliged to wander for forty 
years in the desert which lies between it and Egypt. During this 
period Moses delivered to the Hebrews those laws, and established 
those customs and institutions, which have rendered this people so 
perfectly distinct from all other nations ; and, after having ruled over 
them forty years, he died at the age of 120 years, and in 1515 B. C. 

The period that elapsed from the death of Moses until the reign of 
David is the most intricate part of Jewish history, and writers differ 
respecting the exact number of years which it comprised. But in 

* But these texts do not agree with the genealogy assigned to Moses'; for, from Genesis, 
xlvi. 11., it appears, that Kohath, his grandfather, was born previous to Jacob's descent 
into Egypt. Supposing, therefore, that the filiation of Moses was as under : — 

Jacob begets Levi at 35 years of age. 

Levi begets Kohath SO — 

Kohath begets Amran 35 — 

Amran begets Moses 40 — 

140 years.f 

As Jacob died at 147 years of age, and lived seventeen years in Egypt, Moses must, con- 
sequently, have been born seven years only after Jacob's death, and twenty-four after the 
descent into Egypt. If, therefore, to this last be added the age of Moses, eighty years, 
when he commenced his ministry, the period of the Hebrews' bondage in Egypt will have 
lasted only 104 years. It is at the same time evident, that as Kohath was born previous 
to the descent into Egypt, no probable mode of calculation can extend the period that 
elapsed from his birth to the commencement of the ministry of Moses, either to 215 or to 
430 years. But the manner in which this difference ought to be rectified can depend only 
on conjecture ; yet, since the texts above quoted are so precise and explicit, they seem best 
entitled to credit, as the memory of the descents that connected Amran with Kohath may, 
not unreasonably, be supposed to have been lost in the course of four hundred years. 



-f- It is impossible to admit the following filiation, given in the Armenian translation of Eusebius's 
Chronicle and in Nicephorus : — 

Jacob begets Levi at 86 years of age. 

Levi begets Kohath - 46 — 

Kohath begets Amran 63 — 

Amran begets Moses - 70 — 

Because it is evidently inconsistent with the common course of human nature. 



THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 15 

Kings, vi. 1., it is said, " And it came to pass in the four hun- 
dred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of 
the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in 
the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the 
house of the Lord." Deducting, therefore, the forty years of Moses' 
ministry and the forty years of David's reign, the period during which 
the Hebrews were governed by Judges and by Saul would be about 
400 years. 

But the principal difficulty consists in understanding the manner in 
which the occupation of the promised land was effected by the 
Hebrews. For it has been before observed, that on departing out of 
Egypt the children of Israel amounted to about 600,000 men, and Pa- 
lestine exceeds not 200 miles in length, varying from eighty to fifteen 
miles in breadth ; and yet Jerusalem was not taken until the seventh 
year of David's reign *, 400 years after the Hebrews had entered into 
this small country. It is also said that this narrow, confined, and 
mountainous region was divided into a number of small principalities, 
no less than thirty-three princes being particularized in the twelfth 
chapter of Joshua. But, notwithstanding their evident weakness, the 
numerous people of the Hebrews, so far from conquering these petty 
chiefs, were themselves subjected to servitude during various intervals 
of the above 400 years. At other times they appear to have lived in 
a state of anarchy, which is best described in the words of the Old 
Testament. " And the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, 
and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all 
the great works of the Lord, that he did for Israel. ... And the 
children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served 
Baalim : And they forsook the Lord God of their fathers, which 
brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the 
gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves 
unto them, and provoked the Lord to anger. And they forsook the 

* Yet its capture by the children of Judah, immediately after the death of Joshua, is 
mentioned in the first chapter of Judges. It must have been afterwards retaken by the 
Jebusites. 



16 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 

Lord, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. And the anger of the Lord was 
hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that 
spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round 
about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. 
Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the Lord was against them 
for evil, as the Lord had said, and as the Lord had sworn unto them : 
and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the Lord raised up 
judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled 
them. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they 
went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them : 
they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, 
obeying the commandments of the Lord ; but they did not so. And 
when the Lord raised them up judges, then the Lord was with the judge ; 
and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the 
judge, for it repented the Lord because of their groanings by reason of 
them that oppressed them and vexed them. And it came to pass, 
when the judge was dead, that they returned and corrupted themselves 
more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to 
bow down unto them ; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from 
their stubborn way."* 

The result of this state of alternate independence and servitude is 
equally pointedly explained in the following verses relating to Saul's 
army in the third year of his reign. " Now there was no smith found 
throughout all the land of Israel : for the Philistines said, Lest the 
Hebrews make them swords or spears : but all the Israelites went down 
to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and 
his ax, and his mattock. Yet they had a file for the mattocks and for the 
coulters ; and for the forks and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads. 
So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor 
spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and 
Jonathan : but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found." f 

The reign of David, from 1059 to 1019 B. C, was occupied in con- 
tinual wars ; but he appears to have completed the conquest of 
Palestine, and to have at last succeeded in uniting the Hebrews 

* Judges, ii. 7. et seq. f 1 Samuel, xiii. 19. et seq. 



THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. j^ 

into one kingdom. But the prosperity resulting from his success 
endured no longer than the forty years' reign of his son Solomon ; 
after which the revolt of the ten tribes restricted that part of the 
Hebrews which preserved the Jewish name to the small territory and 
kingdom of Judea. But as the received systems of chronology consider 
Homer to have been contemporary with Solomon, or not more than 
a century posterior to him, it is not necessary that I should pursue 
this subject further. 

From these brief historical notices it must be evident that the 
language of Abraham could have exerted no influence over any other 
languages of the world than those of Egypt and Palestine. But when 
Abraham journeyed from Ur of Chaldea into these countries, he found 
them already civilised, and united into monarchical states of greater or 
less extent. That their people, therefore, would exchange their own 
tongue for that of a stranger, or even receive into it any foreign words 
from such a source, is in the highest degree incredible. On the con- 
trary, it seems extremely probable that the language of the stranger 
would be considerably affected by that of the people among whom he 
dwelt, and that after 216 years' residence in Canaan, the family of Jacob 
did not speak the language of Abraham. It is still more impossible to 
conceive how the Hebrews could preserve, in Egypt, their own tongue, 
pure and unaffected by that of the country, during a period of 430 or 
even 215 years, and, most particularly, while they were increasing from 
seventy souls to 600,000 men, exclusive of women and children. 

These circumstances, when duly considered, must evince that the 
language of Moses could not be the same as that of Abraham, nor 
does it even seem probable that, after the Hebrews had lived in Pales- 
tine for 400 years in the state above described, and in such close com- 
munication with the inhabitants as to adopt their idolatry, the language 
of Moses and David were the same. To this last supposition it will 
be immediately objected that the books of the Old Testament written 
before the time of David prove the contrary. But the style of these 
books, as it became antiquated, may have been rendered by the priests 
correspondent to the current speech of the day ; and different phrases. 



IS THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 

and passages have been pointed out in these books, indicatory of their 
not being in the exact state in which they were originally written. 

But, admitting that the Old Testament exhibits the Hebrew lan- 
guage as it was actually used by Moses, it is perfectly obvious that the 
Hebrews never had the means of extending its influence beyond the 
confines of Palestine. From the Exodus to the reign of Solomon they 
may be justly said to have contended for their existence as a distinct 
people; and, during this whole period of 480 years, not the slightest 
mention is made of their having ever been engaged in commerce or 
foreign war. Even when they attained considerable prosperity under 
Solomon, the position of their country effectually prevented their inter- 
course with any other people, except such as spoke a kindred language. 
Their peculiar customs and institutions, also, would alone prove that 
from the time of Moses, when they were first established, the Hebrews, 
and consequently their language, were completely cut off from the rest 
of the world. " But we do not," says Josephus, " inhabit a maritime 
country, nor find pleasure in commerce, and we, therefore, mix not 
with other people. Our towns are situated at a distance from the sea, 
and enjoying a fruitful soil we employ ourselves in cultivating it. We 
also consider the education of our children, the observance of our 
laws, and the piety inculcated by them, to be the chief business of our 
lives. To which let our peculiar mode of living be added, and there 
was no reason for the Greeks having any intercourse with us, as with 
the Egyptians, for the purpose of importing and exporting. The sea- 
coast was inhabited by the Phenicians, who, for the sake of lucre, were 
most intent on interior and foreign commerce ; and our fathers did 
not, like other people, turn their attention to piracy, nor undertake 
wars for the purpose of aggrandisement."* 

Geography, chronology, and history, therefore, demonstrate the im- 
possibility of Hebrew being the primitive tongue from which all other 

* Josephus contra Appionem, lib. i. cap. 12. 

Bishop Lowth also observes of the Hebrews, " Lejribus et sacris ab caeteris hominibus 
divisi nee admodutn mercaturee dediti, satis habuerunt eas artes colere, quae ad vitae usum 
simplicem et incultum, seu incorr upturn potius, necessariae essent. Itaque praecipua erat 
omnibus occupatio in colendis terris et curando pecore ; agricolarura et pastorum ferme 
natio erant." — De Sacra Persi Hebraorum, vol. i. p. 78. 



THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 19 

languages are derived : for the land of the Hebrews was bounded on 
all sides by countries in which a kindred language prevailed, and with 
the people beyond which they never had, in earlier times, any inter- 
course whatever, as is fully proved by their own history ; nor could 
the few individuals of Abraham's family or the slaves of the Egyptians, 
who afterwards became the Hebrew people, have possibly commu- 
nicated their language, even if they preserved a peculiar one, to other 
nations. The argument a priori being, consequently, so irrefutable, it 
becomes unnecessary to enter into any examination of the Hebrew 
language itself; and I shall, therefore, merely observe, that I have care- 
fully examined the lexicons of Buxtorf and Castell, and that I have 
not been able to discover in them a single word which can be identified 
with any term in Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Persian, German, or English. 
If, however, this assertion should appear questionable, its justness 
will, I think, become evident from the mere consideration of the 
principles on which some etymologists attempt to torture the in- 
tractable words of Hebrew into resemblances with the words of other 
languages.* Mr. Townsend, for instance, who is the latest writer that 

* These remarks of Cour de Gebelin deserve attention : — " Ce que nous avons dit dans 
nos origines Latines sur ceux qui en rapportent la source a l'Hebreu, convient egalement 
a la langue Greque. Ceux qui se sont occupes des origines de celle-ci, n'ont pas ete plus 
heureux que ceux qui ont cherche celles du Latin ; procedant d'apres les m£mes vues, 
marchant egalement au hasard ; sans principes, sans gout, sans critique, sans philosophic, 
il ne reste rien de leurs ouvrages en derniere analyse. Ainsi tous ceux dont nous avons 
parle dans nos origines Latines, operant sur le Grec comme ils avoient fait sur le Latin, 
allongeant, raccourcissant, estropiant les mots, a volonte, ne nous ont rien dit d'utile et de 
satisfaisant sur ces grands objets ; ils n'ont fait que confondre et brouiller tout, augmentant 
les tenebres et les erreurs dans lesquelles on etoit plonge. Afin de demontrer que le Grec 
descend de l'Hebreu, il auroit falloir; 1°. montrer le plus grand rapport entre ces deux 
langues ; 2°. faire voir que ce rapport etoit uniquement le resultat d'une filiation necessaire 
entre le Grec et l'Hebreu ; 3°. que les Grecs eux-memes descendoient en effet des Hebreus, 
ou que ceux-ci communiquerent necessairement leur langue aux Grecs. Mais le rapport du 
Grec avec l'Hebreu n'est pas plus grand qu'avec les autres langues, et la langue Hebreu, 
ou des descendans d' Abraham, n'en a produit aucune autre ; les Grecs ne sont point du 
nombre de ces descendans, et ceux-ci ne sont pas venus apprendre aux Grecs a parler." 
— Monde Primitive, vol. ix. p. xix. xx. 

But Mr. Townsend still maintains the contrary opinion, and in precisely the same manner 
as is so justly condemned in the preceding quotation ; nor does he hesitate to observe, 
" I shall, however, shortly take occasion to demonstrate that Greek and Hebrew are 

D 2 



20 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 

maintains that Hebrew is the primitive tongue from which all other 
languages are derived, is of opinion, that the operation of any one of 
the numerous causes of mutation, which he points out, would be 
sufficient, in the revolution of ages, to disguise a language, and to 
render its origin obscure ; that various considerations have a ten- 
dency to produce despair of being ever able to demonstrate, or even 
to make it probable, that all languages are radically one ; that the task 
is painful, but patience and perseverance, with a little sagacity, an ex- 
tensive knowledge of languages, and strict attention to analogy, may 
accomplish that which at first sight appears impracticable. * The 
correctness of these remarks, if restricted to the cognate dialects of 
any one language, is obvious ; but, if extended to distinct languages, 
their incorrectness is equally evident. For Mr. Townsend himself 
observes, that " the novice in languages would consider the attempt 
to connect or, the Hebrew word for light, with marble, as wild in the 
extreme. But when we observe marmol in Spanish, marbre, in French, 
and marmor in Latin, we readily conceive that marble is allied to these. 
From marmor the progress is easy, through /xa^ai^u and^a^, to or, hor, 
and mor of the same import ; and every one knows that to receive a 
polish and to shine are the essential properties of marble."f But I must 
confess myself such a novice in languages, as to consider this ety- 
mology to be wild in the extreme.:]: At the same time, I readily admit 



radically one, as I have adduced sufficient evidence to prove that a similar identity subsists 
between Sanscrit and Greek. It will then, I trust, be clear to every one, that Sanscrit and 
Hebrew have a radical affinity, and may claim descent from the same progenitor, existing 
at a given time, when the whole earth was of one language. This conclusion is perfectly 
agreeable to the axiom, that if two things are equal to a third, they are equal to each other. 
The argument will then stand thus : Sanscrit and Greek are radically one, Greek and 
Hebrew are radically one, therefore, Sanscrit and Hebrew are radically one, q. e. d." .'.' — 
Ckaracier of Moses, vol. ii. p. 330. 

* Character of Moses, vol. ii. p. 38, 39. t I° id - P- 51. 

% As the m is a servile letter in Hebrew, it also errs against this very just rule which 
Mr. Townsend has himself laid down : — "To investigate a root, we must begin with decom- 
position ; we must get rid of all the prepositive particles and idiomatic terminations, with 
such epenthetical syllables or letters as may have been introduced into the radical expres- 
sion. In a word, we must reduce the term in question to its most simple and elementary 
form." — Ibid. p. 39. 



THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 2 1 

that such etymologies " will immediately connect all the languages of 
Europe, and ultimately those also of Asia, and Africa, and of America, 
in which the same elementary words are found, although variously 
corrupted and disguised by adventitious ornaments and dress. For, 
on examination, it will appear, that the original language has existed, 
and does still substantially exist, diffused throughout the various 
languages which ever have been or now continue to be spoken in any 
quarter of the globe !" 

But it is singular that such etymologists have not adverted to the 
remarkable difference which exists between the grammatical structure 
of Hebrew and that of Sanscrit and Greek. For various causes might 
occasion the passing of single words from one original language into 
another, and such terms, therefore, would be no proof of the affinity 
or common derivation of these two languages. The grammatical 
structure, on the contrary, is peculiar to each distinct tongue and 
even to each cognate dialect of the same language, and must 
have been coeval with the origin of each. If, therefore, Sanscrit 
and Greek were derived from Hebrew, in what manner did these 
languages acquire the numerous inflections which give their nouns and 
verbs such precision and variety, when the alleged parent tongue 
possesses scarcely any inflections ? In what manner did the daughters 
learn to luxuriate in the compound terms to which they are indebted 
for such elegance and beauty, when the mother abhors the ornament 
of composition ? In short, to what causes shall be ascribed the copious 
richness of Sanscrit and Greek, if they owe their origin to a language 
which has been always remarkable for its irremediable poverty? Until, 
however, these questions are satisfactorily answered, it must be evident 
that a few forced resemblances between Hebrew words and those of 
other languages will never prove, in the slightest degree, that Hebrew 
is the primitive tongue from which all other languages have been 
derived. * 

* I observe, also, in the Journal Asiatique for February, 1825, the following remark, 
extracted from a work of M. Bopp, the justness of which cannot be controverted: — " En 
Sanscrit, la voyelle importe beaucoup au sens de la racine, qui change si elle est changee, 



22 THE LANGUAGE OF THE HEBREWS. 

toup signifie blesser (en Grec, run, ti>7tt«>), substituez y un i, tip signifiera arroser, a, tap 
voudra dire bruler. II en est autrement dans les langues Semitiques : les voyelles y servent 
plutot a. determiner les rapports grammaticaux, que la signification fondamentale. De Ratal, 
en Hebreu, on ne peut former, par aucun changement quelqu'il soit, un mot qui ne se 
rapporte pas a l'idee de tuer ; et tous les mots des langues Semitiques qui presentent les 
memes consonnes rangees dans le meme ordre, sans aucun egard aux voyelles appartiennent 
a la meme racine. Une racine Semitique est si indeterminee quant aux voyelles, qu'elje 
est plutot comprise que prononcee." Such a radical dissimilarity is alone sufficient to prove 
that no language, the formation of which depends on the vowels, as Greek and Sanscrit, 
can possibly be derived from Hebrew. 



23 
CHAP. III. 

THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 

Did the primitive language of mankind still exist, there is no country 
in which it can be supposed with greater probability to have been pre- 
served than Arabia ; for the uncontradicted voice of tradition and 
history attests that this country, though partially conquered, was never 
occupied by a foreign people. * " But in an early period of antiquity," 
observes Gibbon, " the great body of the Arabs had emerged from this 
scene of misery ; and as the naked wilderness could not maintain a 
people of hunters, they rose at once to the more secure and plentiful 
condition of the pastoral life. The same life is uniformly pursued by 
the roving tribes of the desert, and in the portrait of the modern 
Bedoweens, we may trace the features of their ancestors, who, in the 
age of Moses or Mahomet, dwelt under similar tents, and conducted 
their horses, and camels, and sheep, to the same springs and the same 
pastures." f The very nature of their country has impressed this un- 
changeable uniformity on the mode of living of the Arabs ; for Volney 
justly remarks, " Ce n'est pas sans raison que les habitans du desert 
se vantent d'etre la race la plus pure et la mieux conservee des peuples 
Arabes : jamais en effet ils n'ont ete conquis. . . . On peut dire qu'ils 
ont conserve a tons egards leur independance et leur simplicite pre- 

* " The kingdom of Yemen has been successively subdued by the Abyssinians, the Persians, 
the sultans of Egypt, and the Turks ; the holy cities of Mecca and Medina have repeatedly 
bowed under a Scythian tyrant ; and the Roman province of Arabia embraced the peculiar 
wilderness in which Ismael and his sons must have pitched their tents in the face of their 
brethren. Yet these exceptions are temporary or local ; the body of the people has 
escaped the yoke of the most powerful monarchies ; the arms of Sesostris and Cyrus, of 
Pompey and Trajan, could never achieve the conquest of Arabia ; the present sovereign of 
the Turks may exercise a shadow of jurisdiction, but his pride is reduced to solicit the 
friendship of a people, whom it is dangerous to provoke, and fruitless to attack." — Gibbon's 
Roman Empire, vol. ix. p. 229. 
f Ibid. p. 223, 



24 



THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 



mieres. Ce que les plus anciennes histoires rapportent de leurs usages, 
de leurs meurs, de leurs langues, et meme de leurs prejuges, se trouve 
encore, presqu'en tout, le meme ; et cette unite de caractere conservee 
dans l'eloignement des temps subsiste aussi dans l'eloignement des 
lieux, c'est-a-dire, que les tribus les plus distantes se rassemblent in- 
finiment. ... A' l'egarde des Arabes, ils semblent condamnes d'une 
maniere speciale a la vie vagabonde par la nature de leurs deserts. 
Pour se peindre ces deserts, que Ton se figure, sous un ciel presque 
toujours ardent et sans nuages, des plaines immenses et a perte de vue, 
sans maisons, sans arbres, sans ruisseaux, sans montagnes ; quelquefois 
les yeux s'egarent sur un horizon raz et uni comme la mer. En 
d'autres endroits le terrein se courbe en ondulations, ou se herisse 
de rocs et de rocailles. Presque toujours egalement nue, la terre 
n'offre que des plantes ligneuses clair semees, et des buissons epars, 
dont la -solitude n'est que rarement troublee par des gazelles, des 
lievres, des sauterelles, et des rats. Tel est presque tout le pays qui 
s'etend depuis Alep jusques a la mer d'Arabie, et depuis l'Egypte 
jusqu'au Golfe Persique, dans un espace de 600 lieues de longueur 
sur 300 de large." * 

To this striking description of Arabia the province of Yemen, or Arabia 
Felix, forms the only exception, the inhabitants of which seem always 
to have led a sedentary life, and to have been united into one kingdom 
at a very early period of the world ; for, of the forty-two towns which 
the geographer Abulfeda enumerates in the whole of Arabia, the most 
ancient and populous were situated in Yemen. The great body of the 
Arabs, consequently, led a pastoral life, and were little acquainted with 
agriculture or commerce. But their communication with the strangers 
who frequented the Arabian ports on the coasts of the Red Sea, the 
Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean, or their own occasional journeys 
into Syria, were of much too weak and transient a nature to exert the 
slightest influence over the language of so extensive a country, or to 
produce the slightest change in the mode of living of the people. 

The deserts of Arabia, therefore, were as powerful causes, as the 

* Volney, Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie, vol. i. p. 34>7. et seq. 



THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 25 

peculiar and unsocial customs of the Hebrews, to prevent other nations 
from maintaining an intercourse with its inhabitants, or from esta- 
blishing themselves in the country. But the descendants of Ishmael* 
did not, like the descendants of Isaac, live for eight hundred years in a 
foreign land, nor did they ever suffer servitude and bondage to a foreign 
people. The Arabic, consequently, was not liable to be affected and 
changed, like the language of Abraham f , by the speech of other 
nations ; nor is there any conceivable cause which could operate any 
alteration in it, after it was once formed, and the Arabs had taken pos- 
session of the country which they have inhabited from time imme- 
morial. The very nature of language shows that, as its sole purpose is 
to communicate the wants and wishes of man, its copiousness must 
depend on the ideas which it is required to express ; and it is hence 
obvious that when a people have adopted a particular mode of life, no 
other cause than the creation of new wants and new ideas can possibly 
occasion any accession to their language. But, until the time of Mu- 
hammad, there appears not the slightest indication in history that the 
Arabs had ever passed out of their own country, and thus acquired a 
knowledge of things with which they were before unacquainted, or that 
strangers had ever introduced into it any new objects of luxury or 
learning ; and consequently their language, whatever refinement it may 
have received from the Arabs themselves, must have, in other respects, 
always remained in its original state, and must have been at all times 
entirely free from exotic words and phrases. 

The language of the Koran and of the modern Bedoweens, at the same 
time, proves that Arabic has not been in any manner affected by the 
languages of the countries which were conquered by the Arabs since the 

* " The present Arabians, according to their own historians, are sprung from two stocks ; 
Kahtan, the same with Joctan the son of Eber, and Adnan descended in a direct line from 
Ismael the son of Abraham and Hagar." — Sale's Koran, Preliminary Discourse, p. 11. 

t I must again observe, that the possibility of the language of Abraham remaining in its 
original state, during the 216 years that he and his family resided in Canaan, and the 430 
years that the Hebrews abode in Egypt, and the 400 years, from the Exodus to the reign 
of David, that they dwelt in such intimate connection with the people of Palestine, is so 
directly contrary to experience, as to render every argument or hypothesis that rests on the 
assumed originality of the Hebrew language totally untenable. 

E 



2g THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 

time of Muhammad. In fact, from the period that Moaviah transferred 
the seat of government from Mecca to Damascus, the further conquests 
of the Moslems were not effected by the inhabitants of Arabia, but by 
armies composed of converts made to Islamism, and of the descendants 
of the conquerors born in the conquered provinces. It seems even 
highly probable, that, within a century after the death of the prophet, 
scarcely a single native of Arabia was to be found in the Muhammadan 
armies. The impulse which he had communicated to the inhabitants 
of the desert gradually ceased, and the Arabs, with the exception of 
religion, returned to their former habits and their former mode of life. 
So little influence, also, did the language of the conquerors exert over 
that of the conquered, that it found not reception either in Persia or 
Spain, and established its prevalence only in Syria, where a cognate 
dialect existed, or in some parts of Africa, where the mixed languages 
resulting from previous conquest were easily superseded by Arabic. 

But the internal evidence alone of the Arabic language is sufficient 
to prove its high antiquity and its perfect originality : for, with the 
exception of a very few Persian and Greek words, not a foreign term 
is to be discovered in it ; its grammatical structure is rude and im- 
perfect ; and the number of ideas which its words radically express is 
extremely limited. These ideas, also, relate entirely to the nature of 
the country, and to the manner of life of the Arabs ; and any person 
might obtain, from the mere examination of the Lexicon of Golius, 
very full and correct information respecting these subjects. I am, at the 
same time, aware, that, from the high encomiums which so many writers 
concur in bestowing on the beauty and richness of this language*, the 
opinion now expressed will most probably be considered as merely 
hazarded for the sake of singularity, and therefore undeserving of 

* A specimen of these encomiums may be taken from Richardson's preface to his Arabic 
Grammar, as he has merely condensed into one sentence the principal subjects of panegyric 
of other writers. " The dialects of their numerous tribes furnished them (the Arabs) with 
rich mines ; from these they freely borrowed ; and formed from the whole a language 
sublime, comprehensive, copious, energetic, delicate, majestic ; adapted equally for the 
softness of love, or the poignancy of satire ; for the mournfulness of elegy, or the grandeur 
of heroics ; for the simplest tale, or the boldest effort of rhetoric." 



THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 27 

attention : but, if it be admitted that words are formed solely for the 
expression of ideas, it must necessarily follow that the language of a 
pastoral people, living in such a country as Arabia, but slightly ac- 
quainted with agriculture and foreign commerce, unused to foreign war, 
and entirely ignorant of all literature, arts, and science, except such as 
consisted in the few rude approaches to the latter necessary for their 
mode of life, and in the cultivation of their own tongue, never could 
possess either copiousness or elegance. 

Sir William Jones, however, is of opinion that " as the Arabic lan- 
guage is unquestionably one of the most ancient in the world, so it 
yields to none ever spoken by mortals in the number of its words, 
and the precision of its phrases." But a number of words, when they 
are merely synonymes for one and the same idea, as in Arabic, is the 
most convincing proof of the barrenness of a language * ; for it incon- 
trovertibly proves that the people who spoke it, or rather the persons 
who cultivated it, having become sensible of the monotony arising from 
the paucity of their ideas being always expressed in the same terms, 
could devise no other means of producing variety than by the invention 
of a new word, perhaps at first indicative of some qualification or mo- 
dification of the original idea. The existence, however, of synonymes 
in the Arabic language, at least to any extent, is very questionable f, and 
the number of words, therefore, applies rather to what might be formed 
according to grammatical rules than to the number which has at any 
time existed in Arabic : for Sir William Jones observes, " The Arabic 
roots are universally triliteral, so that the composition of the twenty-eight 
Arabian letters would give near two and twenty thousand elements of 

* " Tanta copia alias linguas (lingua Arabica) superat ut unius rei appellationes variae 
earumque applicationes voluminis integri materiam prebeant. Leonis nomina habent 
quingenta, serpentis ducenta, mellis octoginta, de quibus integrum libellum scripsit Firan- 
zabadius. Ensis vero appellationes testatur idem esse supra mille, quas in libro a se 
composito enumeravit. Emphasis vero et apta vocum significatio rerum ipsarum naturam 
plene exprimentes, phrases porro et formulas tanta gratia et venustate pollent, ut Graecorum 
XupiTe; cum his collatae a^apiTe; et Latinorum gratiae ingratae videri possint." — Walton, 
Proleg. 14. 

f I speak merely from what has occurred to me during my study of the language, as I 
have never examined it for the purpose of ascertaining this particular point. 

E 2 



2g THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 

the language ; and this will demonstrate the surprising extent of it ; 
for although great numbers of its roots are confessedly lost, and some, 
perhaps, were never in use, yet, if we suppose ten thousand of them 
(without reckoning quadriliterals) to exist, and each of them to admit 
only five variations, one with another, in forming derivative nouns, even 
then a perfect Arabic dictionary ought to contain fifty thousand words, 
each of which may receive a multitude of changes by the rules of 
grammar." A much more certain mode of ascertaining the extent of 
the Arabic language would have been to have examined a dictionary, 
carefully marking such words as were in use, and such as had been 
merely formed by grammarians ; and it would then, if I be not greatly 
mistaken, have satisfactorily appeared that the copiousness of Arabic 
is only in posse and not in esse. 

But to ascribe precision to Arabic is the most extraordinary praise that 
has ever been bestowed on this language ; for in it, though the nouns 
have three cases, the verbs have only two tenses, and no moods except 
the indicative, imperative, and infinitive. Two additional past tenses 
may, indeed, be formed by the assistance of the substantive verb ; but 
the verb itself still remains deficient in a present and future tense, and 
in a conjunctive, potential, and optative mood. These defects are 
attempted to be remedied by the use of certain particles, which give to 
the tenses of the Arabic verb a restricted or modified meaning ; but it 
must be obvious that such a succedaneum can but imperfectly indicate 
the various modifications of time and action, which are expressed by 
the moods and tenses of the verbs of any language that is at all perfect. 
Arabic, also, when written, becomes, in consequence of the imperfection 
of its alphabet, the most indistinct of all languages : for almost all 
the inflections of the noun and verb end in a short vowel ; and, as the 
short vowels are not expressed by alphabetical characters, but by dia- 
critical points which are in general omitted in writing, it is with the 
utmost difficulty that it can be determined what the word is which is 
actually intended, a^ (zrbt), for instance, may be the first person, the 
second person masculine or feminine, and the third person feminine, of 
the preterite of the active or passive voice, or it may be a form of the 



THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 29 

infinitive of the verb V y£, or it may be a noun, according as the short 
vowels may be supplied. The diacritical points, also, belonging to the 
consonants are not unlikely to be omitted, and then three of them may 
be taken for other letters of the same form. To predicate, therefore, 
precision of such a language as this must be a strange abuse of terms ; 
and to suppose it adapted for varied, beautiful, and expressive com- 
position must be equally erroneous. 

The very genius of the Arabic language consists in its rudeness and 
imperfection ; for it was most sedulously cultivated for five hundred 
years *, and yet not the slightest change was effected in its general 
character, nor was it rendered in any degree more flexible, or better 
adapted for the purposes of literature. Of this circumstance no more 
conclusive proof can be required, than the Arabic works produced 
during this period. These consist of interminable commentaries on 
the Koran and the traditions, voluminous but subtle disquisitions on 
Arabic grammar, ponderous works on jurisprudence with still more 
ponderous glosses, several philosophical works, some meagre histo- 
ries and a few monotonous collections of poetry -f : but, immensely 

* From the accession of the Abbassides, in 750, until the capture of Bagdad by the 
Tartars in 1258. 

f The following observations of Sir W. Jones apply equally to modern as to ancient 
Arabic poetry : — " Sed mos erat perpetuus antiquis Arabum poetis, aut ab amoribus poema 
ordiri, aut amorum descriptionem medio poemati apte intexere ; deinde equum aut camelum 
describere, quo vecti ad amicarum tentoria accederent ; et postea ad argumentum prae- 
cipuum uberius tractandum properare, donee per suavem rerum varietatem carmen 
deducentes, lapsu quodam molli et aequabili, in clausulam quasi subito caderent. . . . 
Primum illius (Abi '1 Ola) in laudem principis Said carmen harum literarum cultoribus 
non minorem affert delectationem, quam Graecae poeseos amatoribus primum et quartum 
Pythium. Hujus elatissimi poematis illustriores quasdem virtutes exponam. Seipsum 
initio alloqui videtur, et sententiarum seriem de vanis animse humanas cogitationibus 
fundit. Mox de sua peregrinatione loquitur ; mulieres quasdam inducit de causa itineris 
percontantes. Turn, ad principis laudationem facili aperto aditu, in elatam animi exul- 
tantiam erumpit, et in magnificos versus sese effundit. Deinde bella principis, tanquam 
venatoris potentissimi, describit. Hinc ad amores suos, more Arabico, transit; et 
amicam sub juvencae imagine adumbrat. Tempestatem describit ac fulgura ; morales 
quasdam sententias, ut Pindarus solet, intexit. Hinc occasionem sumit in tribum 
Badia invehendi, quos inhospitalitatis insimulat; iisque Saidi liberalitatem tanquam 
exemplum proponit, cujus fortitudinem ac potentiam mirificis coloribus pingit. Mox equum 



30 THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 

numerous as these works are, the Arabic language, throughout the whole 
of them, maintains its barren uniformity ; and never is the reader re- 
freshed by any change in the unvaried structure of the sentences of 
humbler prose, or in the dull modulation of rhetorical periods ; nor 
even in poetry is he ever delighted by the variety, sweetness, and 
beauty, which composition of words and the placing them as best con- 
duces to harmony can alone bestow on verse. From what has been 
mentioned of Arabic accidence it is obvious that this uniformity in the 
structure of its periods could not be avoided ; for the least change in 
the accustomed place of the noun, or verb, or particle, would at once 
render the sense ambiguous, if not unintelligible. 

But the peculiar characteristic of Arabic, and what distinguishes it in 
particular from the other languages treated of in these Researches, is 
its roots, and the manner in which all the other words are derived 
from them according to certain grammatical rules. The Sanscrit, it is 
true, is said by grammarians to be also formed by the same means : but 
its roots have in themselves no signification, and require several changes 
before they can be conjugated even as verbs ; and the derivation from 
them of other words is often so forced and unsatisfactory, as to render 
it evident that the roots could not have been a constituent part of the 
original language. In Arabic, on the contrary, the root is the third 
person singular of the preterite of the verb, and the derivations from it 



principis ob celeritatem ac nobilitatem, Graecorum more, collaudat, et post nobilem gladii 
prosopopceiam, variasque laudationes, poema claudit." — Sir William Jones's Works, vol. ii. 
p. 392. 155. 

The above remarks describe with accuracy the subjects which invariably occur in all 
Arabic poems ; and the deductions which should be made from this strain of panegyric, will 
be best ascertained by a reference to Sir William's translation of the Moallakat. The 
smaller pieces of Arabic poetry, however, often possess much sweetness and beauty ; but 
Dr. Carlyle's Specimens can convey but an imperfect idea of the originals which he has so 
loosely paraphrased. 

Arabic prose, when written rhetorically, requires that it should consist of periods 
modulated in a certain cadence ; but such a style, though its occasional occurrence might 
please, is extremely wearisome and disagreeable in a work of any length. Of humbler 
Arabic and Hebrew prose a very correct opinion may be formed from reading a page or 
two of any narrative part of the English Old Testament, and carefully omitting all words 
that occur in italics. 



THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 31 

are conducted in so simple and perspicuous a manner, that their relation 
to the root becomes at once obvious. It is this circumstance, and the 
method by which the verb receives various modifications in its original 
meaning by its being formed into thirteen conjugations, each of which 
denotes a particular mode of action or passion, that give to the Arabic 
language, on the first view, so much the appearance of its being the 
work of philosophical grammarians, and not of a rude race of men 
scarcely emerged from the savage state. 

This manner of forming a language, peculiar to Arabic and its cog- 
nate dialects, and so different from the structure of all other languages, 
is certainly a singularity deserving of attention : but the praises which 
have been bestowed on it seem to have proceeded from an imperfect 
consideration of the subject ; for, in the origin and progress of lan- 
guage, there is no means of determining whether the invention of a 
new word, or the modification of a word already invented, would be 
a process of the greater difficulty. The former is the mode which has 
been adopted by the greatest number of people, as their languages 
attest; but the Arabic method appears the simplest, and the preserving 
the letters of a root already in use, and giving it a further signification 
by the mere addition of other letters, would seem to be a resource that 
might occur to even the rudest people. It is at least obvious, that this 
last method must have condemned the language so formed to irre- 
mediable poverty : because the invention of roots would be regulated 
entirely by the ideas which it was indispensable for a people to com- 
municate, in that state of society in which they might be placed ; and, 
as the Arabs adopted, at a very early period of the world, and have im- 
memorially adhered to a pastoral life, it is evident that the objects and 
ideas, for which words were at first required by them, must have been 
few in number. It seems equally evident that, as their mode of life 
never changed in its essential character, the new terms that might have 
become necessary would have been such only as were requisite to ex- 
press those accidental modes of being, thinking, and acting, a know- 
ledge of which might be gradually acquired by a pastoral people from 
long observation and association. For this purpose, therefore, the 



32 THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 

original roots would have been sufficient. But, had even other words de- 
noting new and unknown objects become necessary, the impossibility of 
assimilating them to the peculiar genius of their own language must have 
prevented them from availing themselves of such new ideas, and from 
thus augmenting and improving their own barren and inflexible tongue. 
The peculiarity, also, of such a structure of language renders the com- 
position of words incompatible with the principles of its formation, 
and thus deprives it of that resource which has contributed so much to 
the richness of other languages without their being indebted to foreign 
assistance. An attentive consideration, consequently, of Arabic and 
its cognate dialects will, I think, evince that the simplicity and philo- 
sophical precision of its formation are merely apparent; and that, so far 
from its structure deserving praise, to it alone must be ascribed the 
inflexible uniformity, and the want of variety and copiousness of ex- 
pression, which have been at all times the distinguishing characteristics 
of the Arabic language. 

The same remarks apply to Hebrew, which, both in its words and its 
grammatical structure, bears so intimate an affinity to Arabic*, as to 
render it highly probable that they are both merely dialects of that 
language which was spoken by the race of men by whom Arabia and 
Syria f was originally peopled. But the imperfect state in which 
Hebrew has been preserved, and the impenetrable obscurity which 
conceals the early history of the world, preclude the possibility of 
determining the origin from which such Hebrew words as do not exist 
in Arabic have been derived. They conform, however, in every 
respect, to the genius of this language ; and they may, therefore, with 
much probability, be considered as terms which may have become 
obsolete in it, or as belonging to that dialect of the parent tongue 
which was at first spoken in Palestine or Canaan. 

Were, therefore, history entirely silent, the peculiar structure of the 
Arabic and Hebrew would alone prove that they never could have 

* It is universally admitted that the roots of many Hebrew words, now lost, may still be 
found in Arabic. 

f I mean, of course, Syria in its largest extent. With the Syriac language I am not 
acquainted ; but its intimate affinity with Hebrew and Arabic has never been disputed. 



THE ARABIC LANGUAGE. 



33 



been the origin of the other languages of the world. But tradition 
and history sufficiently show that from the particular nature and 
position of the countries which they inhabited, and from their peculiar 
mode of life, neither the Hebrews nor Arabs had ever at any time such 
a communication with other nations as could ever have effected the 
introduction into their languages of Hebrew or Arabic words. To this 
conclusion Phenicia forms no objection ; for, if the Phenician language 
was, as it is generally supposed, an Arabic or Hebrew dialect, the non- 
existence in Greek of Arabic or Hebrew words* proves that the in- 
troduction of letters into Greece by Cadmus (if such an event ever 
happened) operated no change in the language of the country, and all 
chronologists place the foundation of Carthage posterior to Homer. 
The colonies of Carthage, therefore, were not established until long 
after the Greek language was fully formed, and there is every reason 
to believe that Sanscrit existed in its present state prior to the navi- 
gations of the Phenicians ; and thus, the only means by which other 
languages might have been affected by an Arabic dialect, were not in 
operation until these languages had received such a fixed form and 
such a currency as must have prevented the admission of foreign terms. 
In the existing languages, also, of the countries to which the navi- 
gations of the Phenicians were directed, and in which the colonies of 
Carthage were established, no vestige of an Arabic dialect can now 
be found, f It must, therefore, necessarily follow, that that portion 
of Asia, which comprises Arabia and Syria, was peopled, or at least 
inhabited from time immemorial, by a distinct race of men, who spoke 
a language peculiar to themselves ; and that this language, with its 
cognate dialects, has been at all times confined to these countries, and 
that it never has extended its influence beyond their limits, except to 
a small part of Africa. 

* I am aware that it has been asserted (See F. Von Schlegel, Ueber die Sprache und 
Weisheit der Indier, p. 74.) that the Greek contains more Arabic words than is generally 
supposed, but, until these words are produced, and their identity established, I must doubt 
the correctness of this assertion ; for I have never been able to discover any such identical 
terms. 

f The Arabic words in Spanish must be attributed to the conquest of that country by 
the Arabs, until the contrary is proved. 

F 



34 



CHAP. IV. 

THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 

If I have succeeded in showing that Arabic* could not have been the 
origin of the other languages of the world, it necessarily follows, that 
the country in which it ceased to be spoken must have been conter- 
minous to one in which another distinct language prevailed. To the 
east of Arabia, therefore, the first country where an original tongue 
can at this day be found is Persia. But between these two countries, 
and also extending along the northern boundaries of Arabia and 
Syria, is interposed that region which is bounded on the west by the 
Euphrates, and on the east at present by the Tigris, but in early times 
by Mons Zagros. Here was the seat of the Assyrian empire, and it 
would, therefore, be desirable to ascertain what was the language 
which was spoken by the subjects of Belus and Ninus. But the 
primeval history of this country is involved in the utmost obscurity, 
and it has been so often conquered as to render it extremely doubtful 
whether any trace of its ancient language still exists. 

Ancient history, however, both sacred and profane, attests that the 
first monarchies were established in Babylonia and Assyria. But a 
difference of opinion prevails respecting the manner in which Gene- 
sis, x. 11. ought to be understood; and the learned have not yet 
determined whether it ought to be translated, " Out of this land went 
Ashur and built Nineveh j " or, " he (Nimrod) went out of this land 
into Ashur and built Nineveh." If the last be adopted, and the word 
" Ashur " be understood as denoting a country and not a man, there 

* For the sake of brevity I shall in future comprise under the general term Arabic the 
Hebrew, Syriac, and other cognate dialects. The German literati have adopted the term 
Semitic for this family of languages ; but this term seems improper, as it involves an 
hypothesis and may, therefore, exert an influence on reasoning without its being observed, 
and the same objection applies to the use of the term Hebrew. 



ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 35 

will be found no mention in the Mosaic account of the origin of the 
Assyrian empire. At the same time the memoirs on this subject 
inserted in the Histoire de l'Academie des Inscriptions, all written 
with great fulness and great learning, merely prove that the more 
carefully the passages relating to it, that are contained in ancient 
authors, are collected and examined, the greater is the uncertainty 
which is produced. But it sufficiently appears from them that the 
only data, entirely free from doubt, from which a conclusion can now 
be deduced, are the following : — Herodotus states that the Assyrian 
empire was subverted after it had ruled Upper Asia for 520 years * ; 
and Diodorus Siculus, on the authority of Ctesias, relates that thirty 
generations of kings, from Ninus to Sardanapalus (both inclusive), 
reigned in succession, sons succeeding to fathers, until the revolt of 
the Medes, which took place after the Assyrian empire had continued 
for upwards of 1360 years, f The other passages of ancient authors 
which have been preserved are merely quotations made by later writers 
from works no longer extant, and consequently there are no means of 
determining how far they may have been faithfully extracted, or the 
degree of credit to which they may be entitled..}: 

Volumes have been written on the above two passages, but I shall 
merely repeat the observation, that the number of generations given by 
Ctesias is perfectly incompatible with the number of years, as each 
king would, on an average, have reigned forty-five years, a period which 
is quite irreconcilable to experience and the common course of nature. 
But these generations apply accurately to the duration of the Assyrian 

* Herodotus, lib. i. c. 91. 

f Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. c. 21. 

X See, however, on this subject, a Memoire by M. Treret and the Memoires de l'Aca- 
demie des Inscriptions, vol. v. p. 331.; but he observes in a following Memoire, "La 
connaissance que nous avons aujourd'hui de l'ancienne histoire, est presqu'entierement 
fondee sur diverses citations, que nous trouvons repandues dans les ecrits de l'antiquite. 
...Mais, comme ces fragmens laissent souvent des vuides entr'eux ; que plusieurs sont 
obscurs, et paroissent opposes les uns aux autres, ou avec des histoires dont la suite entiere 
nous est connue, il ne suffit pas de determiner en general le degre d'autorite des 6crivains 
dont on employe les fragmens ; il faut encore souvent les interpreter, et les supplier par des 
conjectures, et des hypotheses, qui ne tirent leur force que de leur probability, et de leur 
liaison avec le reste de Phistoire." — Ibid. vol. vi. p. 147. 

p 2 



36 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 

empire mentioned by Herodotus, as each king's reign would then, on 
an average, have continued for only seventeen or eighteen years, which 
is perfectly consistent with probability. I am, therefore, surprised 
that most writers have contented themselves with adopting either 
one or other of these accounts, and with arranging their systems 
accordingly : for, if it be once admitted, as most consonant with 
probability, that Herodotus and Ctesias both intend the same dynasty, 
it is only further requisite to suppose that Ctesias, not possessing 
any information respecting the prior kingdom of Babylon, has 
confounded with it that of Nineveh, and has ascribed the esta- 
blishment of the former to the actual founders of the latter. It 
would, then, merely follow, that the history of the Babylonians had 
irretrievably perished previous to the time of the first Grecian writer, 
and that when Herodotus mentions Assyrians he means those of 
Nineveh only. But the simple circumstance of a monarchy having 
existed in Babylonia 800 years before it was conquered by Ninus 
is a fact that might be easily remembered ; and it is, also, one 
that would have flattered the pride of the conqueror ; as nothing 
could be a more convincing proof of his greatness and power, than 
the conquest of a kingdom which had flourished for so many ages. 
To this supposition the only objection is the silence of Herodotus. 
But all his works have not reached posterity ; and other ancient 
writers have expressly ascribed the foundation of the Babylonian 
monarchy not to Ninus, but to Belus, whose memory was long pre- 
served by his name having been given to that remarkable tower in 
Babylon which has been so often described. 

Though, therefore, ancient history does not furnish sufficient proof 
that Babylon was once a powerful and independent monarchy ; yet 
it does not in any manner contradict such a supposition, but, on 
the contrary, records many circumstances which, when combined, 
depose strongly in its support. Nothing, certainly, can be more 
probable, than that Babylon might, from small beginnings, have suc- 
ceeded in extending its authority over the whole of that tract of 
country which is bounded on the east by the Mons Zagros, on the 



BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 37 

north by Armenia, and on the west and south by the Euphrates. 
In process of time this state declines, and the governor of Nineveh 
rebels, and renders himself so powerful that either he or his son 
succeeds in conquering the whole country, and in transferring the 
sovereignty from the reigning dynasty to his own family. It is, also, 
to be remarked, that all ancient writers, I believe, agree in the essential 
fact of there having been only one Assyrian empire, and that none 
mention the existence, previous to the Ninus of Herodotus, of two 
contemporary kingdoms, the one at Babylon and the other at Nineveh. 
It is, therefore, merely requisite, supposing that the accounts of 
Herodotus and Ctesias relate to the same dynasty, to weigh the 
probability of the Assyrian monarchy having been founded at Babylon 
2000 years B. C. according to Ctesias, or at Nineveh only 1200 years B. C. 
according to Herodotus. * But as the high antiquity of the Babylonians 
seems sufficiently attested by ancient history, and as the few words 
of Herodotus do not necessarily imply that a kingdom did not exist 
in Babylonia previous to Ninus, the number of years assigned to the 
Assyrian empire by Ctesias seems most consistent with probability. 

As scarcely any events of Assyrian history are related, this point 
would be of little importance, were it not that, from the centrical 
situation and acknowledged power of this empire, it is much more 
probable that language should have been introduced into the adjacent 
countries by its people than by the Egyptians. Nothing, however, 
respecting the language of Babylonia can be learned from ancient 
writers, but modern authors have, on no sufficient grounds, concluded 
that it was Chaldaic. For Bochart himself admits, " Hanc linguam 
etsi HebraicEe valde vicinam Judaeos ante captivitatem Babylonicam 
non intellixisse testatur Jeremias, v. 15.;" and also, "Prima (lingua) 
est Chaldaea seu Syra quo Daniel et Esdras multa scripserunt, et 
Jeremias unicum comma, x. 11. "f Adelung, also, is of opinion, that 

* In a paper contained in the second volume of the Transactions of the Bombay Literary 
Society, I have endeavoured to prove, from Persian and other authorities, that the revolt 
of the Medes, or rather the Persians, from the Assyrians took place in 749 B. C. 

f Bocharti Opera, vol. i. p. 57. 



38 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 

" The most ancient pure Babylonian dialect is unknown : Semitic it 
certainly was. As little is it known what change the Kushites, an 
Arabian colony, may have produced in it. After the emigration 
of the Chaldaeans their dialect became predominant, which Daniel, 
cap. ii.*, expressly calls Aramasan."']' But Adelung does not clearly 
explain the reasons which induced him to conclude that the ancient 
dialect of Babylonia was Semitic, nor does he attempt to fix the date 
of this supposed immigration of Chaldeans into it, but admits that 
for many centuries after the time of Jacob the Chaldeans are not 
mentioned until the conquests of Asarhaddon, 673 B. C."J It there- 
fore appears that the Jews had no knowledge of the ancient language 
of Babylonia, and that their intercourse with this country did not 
take place until after Nineveh had been conquered by the Medes, 
and a new kingdom established at Babylon : consequently the Old 
Testament affords no information on the subject ; for, admitting that 
the language spoken in this latter kingdom was Chaldaic, it follows 
not that such was the language which previously prevailed in Baby- 
lonia and Assyria. 

But even this last opinion rests on no sufficient grounds : because 
the words in Daniel, ii. 4., " Then spake the Chaldeans to the king 
in Syriac," prove not that the tongue of the Chaldeans was Syriac, 
but merely that these wise men addressed the king in this language; 
for, had they spoken in the vernacular tongue of the country, it seems 
extremely improbable that Daniel would have noticed so trivial a 
circumstance. Nor do the passages in Daniel and Esdras written in 
Chaldaic afford more conclusive testimony, as no reasonable cause 
can be ascribed for this] singularity : for there is no authority what- 

* [" And the king (Nebuchadnezzar) spoke unto Ashpenaz the master of the eunuchs, 
that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the 
princes ; children in whom there was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all 
knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the 
king's palace, and >whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans." 
Daniel, i. 3, 4. These texts seem to contradict the interpretation given by Adelung to the 
one which he cites.] 

-f- Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 329. % Ibid. p. 316. 



BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 39 

ever for supposing that the Jews forgot their own language during 
their seventy years' captivity, and adopted that of the people amongst 
whom they resided * j and, had this been the case, the whole books of 
Daniel and Esdras, and not a few passages only, would undoubtedly 
have been written in this new language, or otherwise they could not 
have been understood by the Jews. The Chaldaic Targums, also, 
prove nothing, for the oldest ascends not beyond forty years before 
Christ, and, consequently, there is no evidence that it is written in the 
language which prevailed in Babylonia previous to its being conquered 
by Cyrus in 538 B. C. Nor, with regard to the more ancient language 
of this country, can any argument be founded on Ur being situated in 
it, because I have already shown how impossible it is that the present 
Hebrew can be the language which was spoken by Abraham. 

It must, therefore, be concluded that the ancient tongue of Baby- 
lonia and Assyria is either extinct, or that it must be sought for in 
other languages which still exist. It is on this account that I have 
entered into the preceding discussion ; and it will perhaps be admitted 
that there is nothing contained either in sacred or profane history, 
which can contradict any conclusions with respect to this language, that 
may be formed in the courseof the following researches. 

The only people to whom the unanimous voice of ancient history 
ascribes the same antiquity as the Babylonians are the Egyptians. 
From Egypt, also, the Greeks admitted that they had derived in a 
great measure their people, their language, and their religion. But 
the only authority on which the truth of these circumstances depends, 
is the relation made to Grecian travellers by the priests of Egypt. 
No written documents have ever been examined or produced ; and all, 
therefore, that is known respecting the ancient state of this country 
appears in a form the most questionable and liable to objection : for, 
were it even admitted that the Egyptian priests communicated to 
strangers nothing but the truth, still innumerable mistakes might arise 

* As it appears, also, that Daniel, and the greatest part of the Jewish captives, lived in 
Persia, it must follow, that had the Jews changed their language for that of the country, 
this language must have been Persian and not Chaldaic. 



40 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 

from the stranger's imperfect knowledge of the Egyptian language, 
and from the difficulty that exists in understanding an explanation of 
things previously unknown ; and, were even these causes of error 
avoided, the information obtained must always depend on the abilities 
of the enquirer, and its accurate transmission on his freedom from pre- 
conceived opinions and prejudice. The accounts, consequently, given 
by ancient writers, of the Egyptians cannot be received as conclusive; 
and their authority may, therefore, be rejected, whenever it is incon- 
sistent with probability, or repugnant to facts established on sufficient 
evidence. 

But an examination of the early history of this country, which has 
exercised the skill of so many learned men, is unnecessary ; because, 
with the exception of the conquests of Osiris and Sesostris, and the 
colonies that may have proceeded from Egypt, it is not related that the 
Egyptians ever traversed or occupied other countries. The Egyptians, 
also, considered themselves to be autochthones ; but it is most probable 
that their country was peopled from Arabia or Syria, and, consequently, 
that their original language was Arabic. Volney, however, observes : 
" En considerant le visage de beaucoup d'individus de cette race 
(Copte), je lui ai trouve un caractere particulier qui a fixe mon atten- 
tion : tous ont un ton de peau jaunatre et fumeux, qui n'est ni Grec ni 
Arabe ; tous ont le visage bouffi, 1'ceil gonfle, le nez ecrase, la levre 
grosse ; en un mot, une vraie figure de Mulatre. J'etais tente de 
l'attribuer au climat, lorsqu'ayant ete visiter le sphinx ; son aspect me 
donna le mot de l'enigme. En voyant cette tete caracterisee negre dans 
tous ces traits, je me rappelai ce passage remarquable d'Herodote, ou 
il dit : pour moi, jestime que les Colches sont une colonie des Egyptiens, 
parceque, comme eux, Us ont la peau noire et les chevaux crtpus : c'est-a- 
dire que les anciens Egyptiens etaient vrais negres de l'espece de tous les 
naturels d'Afrique." He adds, with justice : " On peut meme donner 
a cette observation une etendue tres-generale ; et poser en principe, 
que la physionomie est une sorte de monument propre en bien des cas 
a constater ou eclaircir les temoionages de l'histoire, sur les origines 
des peuples. Parmi nous, un laps de neuf cents ans n'a pu effacer la 



BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 4]. 

nuance qui distinguait les habitans des Gaules, de ces hommes du Nord, 
qui, sous Charles-le-Gros, vinrent occuper la plus riche de nos provinces. 
Les voyageurs qui vont par mer de Normandie en Danemarck, parlent 
avec surprise de la ressemblance fraternelle des habitans de ces deux con- 
trees, conservee malgre la distance des lieux et des temps. La merae 
observation se presente, quand on passe de Franconie en Bourgogne ; 
et si Ton parcourait avec attention la France, 1' Angleterre, ou toute autre 
contree, on y trouverait la trace des emigrations ecrite sur la face des 
habitans. Les Juifs n'en portent- ils pas d'ineffaeables en quelque 
lieu qu'ils soient etablis ? " * 

The only objection which can be made to this opinion, arises from 
ignorance of the manner in which the world was originally peopled ; 
for, according to the notions which are imbibed from infancy, it is 
difficult to conceive how Ethiopia could have been inhabited before 
Egypt. It seems, also, much more probable, that any tribes who mi- 
grated from Arabia would have occupied Egypt long before they were 
induced to pass over the Red Sea into Africa. But the remarks of 
Volney, with respect to the features and hair of the ancient Egyptians, 
are confirmed by the remains of their painting and sculpture ; and 
Diodorus Siculus relates that the Ethiopians considered themselves 
more ancient than the Egyptians, and asserted that the latter sprung 
from an Ethiopian colony which had been led into Egypt by Osiris, f 

* Volney, Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie, vol. i. p. 74. 

f Diodorus Siculus, lib. iii. c. 2, 3. 

This was the opinion of Bruce, and it is further supported by Dr. A. Murray, who sums 
up his arguments in these words : — 

" But the points which have been attempted to be proved from the preceding arguments 
are precisely these : 

" Egypt was not peopled from Arabia, as is commonly believed ; for, 

" 1. The Coptic and Arabic languages are radically different, and were so in the days of 
Abraham. 

" 2. The religion of Egypt (as has been shown elsewhere) is older than the days of 
Joseph ; and bears internal marks of having been the native product of that country. 

" 3. Egypt was peopled from south to north, from the Thebaid ; for the Delta, that 
part of Egypt contiguous to Arabia, seems to have been originally uninhabitable, except a 
small space about the extremities of the marsh ; and history assures us, that the inhabitants 
of Upper Egypt descended and drained the country. 

" 4.. It is improbable that an Arabian colony under Misrim (a word which does not signify 



42 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 

If, also, the Egyptian language contributed in any degree to the form- 
ation of the Greek, it could not have been Arabic, or one of its cognate 
dialects ; because not an Arabic word can now be found in Greek, 
and the grammatical structure of the two languages is radically dis- 
similar. Probability, therefore, seems to establish the Arabian peopling 
of Egypt, but physiognomy and perhaps language lead to a contrary 
conclusion. 

Could it, however, be proved that the Coptic was the ancient 
language of Egypt, this circumstance might be extricated from the 
obscurity in whicli it is at present involved ; for l'Abbe Barthelemy 
has remarked, — " Nous avons done entre nos mains la veritable langue 
des Egyptiens, et tandis que le moindre monument de ce peuple 
celebre occupe depuis deux siecles les antiquaires, tandis que d'intre- 
pides grammairiens ont depense beaucoup d'esprit et de temps a deve- 
lopper les autres langues, on a presque entierement neglige celle ou une 
nation eclairee, ancienne et puissante, a depose la plus grande partie 
de ses idees."* But the preservation of a language, not cultivated nor 
committed to books, for nearly 1500 years, and while the country was 
occupied by three distinct races of conquerors, is so contrary to 
probability as to require the most full and satisfactory evidence, in 
order to render such a circumstance in the least degree credible. That 
a number of ancient Egyptian words may exist in Coptic is possible, and 
a collection of them might enable the philologist to determine the 
affinity which that tongue bears to other languages f : but, as it is 



a man, but two kingdoms,) would have crossed Syria from Babylon by the Isthmus of Suez, 
and wandered as far south as Thebes to found its first settlement." — Bruce's Travels, 
8vo ed. vol. ii. p. 479. 

* Memoires de 1'Academie des Inscriptions, vol. xxxii. p. 218, 219. 

f " Le langage est un autre monument dont les indications ne sont pas moins justes ni 
moins instructives. Celui dont usaient ci-devant les Coptes, s'accorde a constater les faits 
que j'etablis. D'un cote, la forme de leurs lettres et la majeure partie de leurs mots, 
demontrent que la nation Grecque, dans un sejour de mille ans, a imprime fortement son 
empreinte sur l'Egypte ; mais d'autre part, l'alphabet Copte a cinq lettres, et le dictionnaire 
beaucoup de mots qui sont comme les debris et les restes de l'ancien Egyptien." — Volney, 
Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie, vol. i. p. 77. 



BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 43 

admitted that numerous Greek and Arabic words occur in Coptic, in 
what manner can their origin be proved ; or can it be shown whether the 
Egyptians received them from the Greeks and Arabs, or the contrary ? 
for the present grammatical structure of the Coptic cannot be admitted 
as a proof, until some writing anterior to the time of Cambyses is pro- 
duced, and it is there found to be exactly the same.* 

But, whatever may have been the ancient language of the Egyptians, 
it seems incontrovertible that they differed essentially from the Arabs 
and Syrians in customs, institutions, and religion ; and, consequently, 
that, if Egypt were peopled from Arabia, it must have received its 
civilisation from some other country. The very brief accounts which 
ancient writers have given of the Arabs and Syrians, do not afford the 
means of drawing any detailed comparison between them and the 
Egyptians ; but this very circumstance proves that there must have 
been some peculiarity in the polity of the latter, which so much at- 
tracted the attention of strangers. The cause of that peculiarity has, 
in later times, been discovered in India, where the same system of civil 
and religious institutions, in their essential principles, prevails at the 
present day ; the same division into casts, the same objects of wor- 
ship, the same form of government so intimately connected with 
religion and subservient to the pre-eminence of the priesthood f, 
strongly attest that systems so similar must have been derived from 
one and the same origin. The universal belief, also, of the Greeks that 
their gods were the same as those of the Egyptians, and their thus 
considering Egypt as the source of their religion, while they derived 
their letters from Phenicia, evince that they regarded the two countries 

* Dr. A. Murray is, however, of opinion that " the Coptic is an original tongue, for it 
derives all its indeclinable words and particles from radicals pertaining to itself. Its verbs 
are declined from its own resources. There is no mixture of any foreign language in its 
composition except Greek, which is easily distinguished, and as easily accounted for." — 
Bruce's Travels, 8vo ed. vol. ii. p. 473. 

f The sanctity of the cow may be added : but in mentioning this circumstance Hero- 
dotus is evidently inconsistent ; for he restricts this sanctity to the female, and states that 
the male was sacrificed and eaten. But Apis and Mneves were bulls, and he himself relates 
that it was repugnant to the customs of the Egyptians to eat the flesh of any of their sacred 
animals. 

G 2 



44 



THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF 



in a different point of view. Nothing, in fact, can be found in ancient 
writers which in the least assimilates the Arabians and Syrians to the 
Egyptians, and the latter, therefore, must, if not in origin, at least in 
civilisation, be considered as belonging to a distinct family of mankind. 
But it seems obvious, from their distance and relative position, that 
India could not have commu cated her institutions to Egypt ; and, as I 
presume no argument will be founded on the conquests of Osiris and 
Sesostris, that India could not have received them from Egypt. 
Some intermediate country, therefore, must have existed, by means of 
which this communication was effected ; and Babylonia immediately 
presents itself as the only one which, from its acknowledged antiquity, 
its centrical situation, and the power of the Assyrian empire, could have 
introduced its customs, laws, and religion into other countries at an 
early period, of the world. For this purpose, however, conquest was 
not indispensable, but merely the migration of colonies ; and if the first 
men inhabited this country, which seems very probable, the tide of 
population must have necessarily flowed to the west and the east. Nor, 
in so fruitful a country, is it necessary to suppose that these colonies 
would branch off until numbers began to press on the means" of sub- 
sistence ; nor until, therefore, a considerable degree of civilisation had 
been attained : and, consequently, the colonists would have carried 
with them a knowledge of the civil and religious institutions of their 
country. This supposition is not, I believe, in contradiction to any 
thing contained in ancient writers, excepting these words of Diodorus 
Siculus : — " The Egyptians say that after this many colonies from 
Egypt were spread over the world ; one of these Belus, the reputed 
son of Neptune and Libya, led to Babylon, which is situated on the 
river Euphrates, and established the priests, whom the Babylonians 
call Chaldean, and whom he exempted, according to the Egyptian 
custom, from taxes and public burdens."* But Brucker observes that, 
" Although the Egyptians contended with the Chaldeans respecting 
their antiquity, and maintained that Chaldea was a colony of Egypt, 

* Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. c. 28. 



BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. 



45 



and therefore boasted that they were the parents and teachers of all 
that learning for which the Chaldeans had become so famous ; yet the 
testimony of the ancients, agreeing with what is related of the origin 
of the most ancient nations, proves that the kingdom of Babylon flou- 
rished before the monarchy of Egypt, and that the Chaldeans were not 
in any manner indebted for their learning to the Egyptians."* The 
contrary may, therefore, appear most probable ; and the civilisation of 
Egypt and the establishment of its peculiar frame of government may 
be with much justice ascribed to Babylonia; 

* Historia Critica Philosophise, vol. i. p. 102. 



46 



CHAP. V. 

ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

In proceeding to consider the Greek, Latin, and Teutonic languages, 
I find my progress impeded by the opinions of several learned men, 
who ascribe their origin either to the Celtic or Scythic. For Wachter, 
in Epilogo Glossarii sui, observes, — " Qui linguam Celticam tanquam 
matrem Germanicae suspiciunt, sequuntur opinionem valde verisimilem, 
et longi temporis traditione comprobatam, ut de rei ipsius testimonio 
nunc nihil dicam. Verum dum iidem Graeca omnia, quamvis mani- 
festo similia, fastidiunt, et ad fortuitas allusiones rejiciunt, causam 
bonam male tuentur, et veram linguae Celticae faciem aut ignorare aut 
dissimulare videntur, nam lingua Celtica Graecae adeo similis est, sem- 
perque fuit ab omni retro memoria, ut ovum ovo similius esse non 
possit. Hujus similitudinis documenta praebent innumerae voces Cel- 
ticae, quae partim ab historicis sunt consignatae, partim apud Cambro- 

Britannos hodieque perdurant Causa, cur tanta sit inter linguam 

Celticam et Graecam convenientia, ut major esse non possit, quatuor 
modis concipi potest. 1. Si lingua Celtica et Graeca sint sorores, et 
filiae alicujus antiquioris, sive Scy.thicae, sive primigeniae, quorum illud 
Salmasio, hoc Cluverio, se probavit. Tunc enim manifestum est, cur 
facies sit non una duabus, 

" ' Nee diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum.' 

2. Si omnes Celtae sint a Graecis orti, quod non dubitavit asseverare 
Bodinus in Methodo Historiarum. 3. Si Graeci voces suas, in quibus 
est conformitas, acceperint a Celtis, quod multo eruditionis apparatu 
ostendere conatur Pezuonius in Antiquitatibus Celticis. 4. Si omnia 
Graeca sint contagia Celticae linguae affricta a commercio Graecorum, 
qui Massiliam condiderunt, quod contra Bodinum demonstrandum 

suscepit Cluverius Quaenam ex tot suppositionibus potissimum 

assumenda est, ego ignoro, et nostra parum referre puto. Nam ex 



ON THE SCYTHIANS. 



47 



dictis abunde manifestum est, si lingua Germanica sit dialectus Celtica 
qua via, aut quibus hominibus, tot vocabula Graecis similia ad nos 
pervenerint, quacumque suppositione utamur. 

" Pone vero omnia, quag nobis Celtica videntur, a Scythis profecta 
esse, ratio igitur reddenda erit, cur tarn magnus et incredibilis numerus 
vocabulorum, quae non solum sono sed etiam significatu cum Graecis 
conveniunt, in lingua nostra reperiatur, si Scythicae originis sit ? Nam 
omnes istas consensiones meras assonantias esse, felices quidem, sed 
nescio quo casu factas, non placet. Quicquid a summis viris excogitatum 
est, ad duas rationes principales, parentelam et mixturam, reduci potest. 
De parentela ita disserit Salmasius in Hellenistica, ut linguam 
Scythicam Graecae et Germanicae matrem fuisse ostendat. . . . Atqui si 
veritati consentaneum est, Scythicam linguam esse Gothicae parentem, 
et Graecae sororem, qui fieri potest, ut neptis materterae omnino dis- 
similis sit ? Merito igitur Junius in quasstione de ortu vocabulorum, 
Graecam dictionem, quoties nostram refert, nobis pro etymo ostendit. 
Nam hanc ostendisse, satis magnificum est, quoniam in ilia tanquam 
speculo Scythicae vocis imaginem, nullis Uteris proditam, quodammodo 
contemplari possum us. Altera similitudinis causa peti potest a mix- 
tura. Nota est Scytharum et Graecorum ab ultimis inde temporibus 
vicinitas, nota etiam commercia. . . . Hac via multa Graecos a Scythis, 
multa Scythas a Graecis accepisse et propagasse, judicat Salmasius. . . . 
Quod si pro vero accipiatur (et nihil accipere vetat), consequens est, 
fines utriusque linguae tarn esse permixtos, ut hodie amplius discerni 
non possint." 

He observes in another place, — " Hanc utriusque [Persicae et Ger- 
manicae] linguae harmoniam, quae omnibus temporibus doctissimos viros 
stuporem rapuit, si quis casu factam contendat, nae ille parum harmonice 
factus est. * Non equidem hoc volo, ut Germaniam a Perside, vel 
hanc ab ilia, voces suas accepisse existimetis, sed ut similia ad similes 
et communes ortus mecum redigatis, matricem inquam Scythicam, 
nobilem sane, et utrique genti convenientem. Scythas enim non 

* See p. 154. of this work, where the supposed identity of the Persian and German 
languages is examined. 



48 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

solum in Europa (quod supra demonstravi), sed etiam in Asia, genus 
et linguam suam proseminasse, multa nobis persuadent." * 

But who were these Scythians, and what language did they speak ? 
On these points the opinions of all writers, except Pinkerton, are vague, 
inconsistent, and unsatisfactory. He, however, gravely states, — " From 
these smaller lights, compared with Trogus or Justin, it will appear as 
evident as so remote an event can well be, that the Scythian empire 
was the first of which any memory has reached us. And it is a plausible 
opinion, adopted by late mythologists, that Saturn, Jupiter, Bacchus, 
&c, were monarchs of this first empire, whose glorious actions pro- 
cured them honours from their subjects after their death. This empire 
was perfectly barbaric, and the seat of war not of arts. All nations, 
save the Egyptians, were then pastoral, and the Scythians, as described 
by Herodotus, on the Euxine were certainly more advanced in society 
than when holding the empire of Asia ; for agriculture was then known 
to one or two nations of them, which there is no room to think they 
knew at all in their first empire. The wandering state of pastoral 
society will at once account for so many of the Scythae leaving their 
dominions, on the Assyrian conquest, that eastern tradition reported 
the dispersion of men to have followed that event. But, no doubt, vast 
numbers still remained in Persia. Herodotus and Diodorus only 
mention the Scythae Nomades of the north of Persia to have past the 
Araxes ; and the Scythae in the south remained, and were ever known 
by the name of Persians, as at this day. . . . We have already seen that 
the Scythian empire, in present Persia, is the most ancient of which 
history has preserved any memorial. This curious subject shall not 
be here enlarged upon, but is left to some future historian of the 
Scythians. This empire seems to have extended from Egypt to the 
Ganges, and from the Persian Gulph and Indian Sea to the Cas- 
pian. j 

* Wachteri Glossarium, in praefatio. 

f Pinkerton's dissertation on the Scythians or Goths, p. 27. 32. 

But no authorities are quoted for this elaborate description of the primeval Scythian 
empire commencing before 3660 B. C ; and, although the name of history is made use of, 
I know no historian from whom it could be taken, except Annius of Viterbo. 



ON THE SCYTHIANS. 49 

But, that the Scythians were even known in the time of Homer, 
depends entirely on the meaning which is given to these lines, the only 
ones to be found in his two immortal poems, which have ever, I believe, 
been applied to these people, 

Mvcruv t ay^£fioix uv t J4a ' ayotvuv t l7f7rvjfJi.oXyuv i 
TyaKTofyayW) AQiuv t£ otzxiorccTuv ccvB^onruv* 

Strabo has given an interesting criticism on these verses, and maintains 
that Homer must have been acquainted with the Scythians * ; but his 
arguments are founded on circumstances of too general a nature to 
admit of any pastoral people being identified by them. The two 
verses, also, preceding these, 

AvTog h ttolKiv rp£7T£!/ otrcre (puetveo, 

would seem to prove sufficiently that the 'iTnr^oXyoi, VXu-nTo^otyot, and 
a£;o/ must have been a Thracian people, and Strabo himself contends 
that the Mvcroi were Thracians. It therefore follows, that Herodotus is 
the earliest ancient writer who has given any account of the Scythians, 
and he expressly declares, 'Hg h Zkv9ou Xeyovcri, vecoTctrov ccttocvtuv tOvsuv etvoa 

to o-<p£Tepoi/-f ; and he adds, that the Scythians were of opinion that 
exactly one thousand years had elapsed from Targitaus, their first 
king, until their country was invaded by Darius, about 500 years before 
Christ. 

To oppose, consequently, to the authority of Herodotus, such a 
writer as Justin, who hesitates not to assert, that " his igitur argu- 
ments superatis Egyptiis, antiquiores semper Scythae visi," can proceed 
only from the spirit of hypothesis : but, were even the very imper- 
fect notices which he has given of the Scythians not contradicted 
by other writers (as in the instance of his stating, " His (Scythis) 
igitur Asia per mille quingentos annos vectigalia fuit,") to be consi- 
dered as entitled to any attention, in what manner could the country 

* Strabo, ed. Amstel. p. 298. et seq. f Herod, lib. iv. c. 15. 

H 



50 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

which they inhabited be determined by such a geographical description 
as this, " Scythia autem in Orientem porrecta includitur ab uno 
latere Ponto, et ab altero montibus Riphaeis, a tergo Asia et Phasi 
flumine?" The only event, also, mentioned by Justin, the date of 
which can be ascertained, is stated in these words, " Pendendi tributi 
(Scythis) finem Ninus rex Assyriorum imposuit." But Ninus flourished, 
according to the received system of chronology, 1267 years before 
Christ*; and, consequently, if the Scythians had held the dominion of 
Asia for 1500 years previously, their empire must have commenced one 
hundred years before the flood. Mr. Pinkerton, indeed, asserts that 
the Scythians made an attack on Egypt in the year 3660 B. C. 

All discussions, at the same time, respecting the Scythians are ren- 
dered obscure and perplexed, in consequence of both ancient and 
modern writers employing the words Scythia and Scythians in so 
vague and indefinite a manner, that it is scarcely ever possible to de- 
termine what particular country or people is intended, whenever these 
terms are used without qualification. But the opinion entertained by 
Herodotus on this point is thus explained by Rennell : — " The country 
of Scythia he (Herodotus) places next in order to Thrace, going north- 
eastward along the shores of the Euxine and Maeotis. Where Thrace 
ends Scythia begins, says he, Melp. 99. It will appear, however, that the 
Scythians of Herodotus were the Sarmatae and Getae of the Romans ; 
and his Massagetae the Scythians of the same people, as well as of the 

Greeks in general, from the date of Alexander's expedition The 

ancients distinguished two countries by the name of Scythia, the one 
extending along the north of the Euxine, the other beyond the Caspian 

and Jaxartes The Western, or Euxine Scythia, was the one invaded 

by Darius Hystaspes ; on which occasion the Ionians, by preserving 
his bridge of boats on the Danube, secured his retreat ; and the Eastern 
Scythia, called also the country of the Massagetae, was the one invaded 
by Cyrus ; in which, according to our author as well as Justin and 
Diodorus, he lost his life So that the proper Scythians of Hero- 

* But, according to other systems, 2127 B.C. 



ON THE SCYTHIANS. 51 

dotus were those at the Euxine ; and those of succeeding writers at 
the Caspian (or rather Aral) and Jaxartes." * 

It deserves, also, to be observed, that if a line be drawn from the 
western extremity of the Euxine along its southern shores due east to 
Mons Imaus, and thence along that mountain to the Gulf of Bengal, 
it will divide Asia into two perfectly distinct parts. For to the south 
of this line are situated Asia Minor, Syria, Arabia, Babylonia, Armenia, 
Persia, and Hindustan ; all which countries have been known to his- 
tory from the remotest antiquity, and, therefore, respecting their early 
progress in civilisation no doubt can be entertained. Their languages, 
also, remain at this day, in all probability, radically the same as they 
were spoken more than three thousand years ago. But, to the north 
of the line just mentioned, the country continues even to the present 
times almost a terra incognita. Nothing more is known of it than that 
it has been inhabited from time immemorial by nomadic tribes, dis- 
tinguished by the manners and customs peculiar to their mode of life. 
But not a single circumstance has ever been discovered which evinces 
that these people had made the smallest progress in civilisation ; or 
that they ever were qualified to communicate a cultivated language, 
civil institutions, and a religious system, to other nations. On the con- 
trary, the devastations and barbarity which have always attended, in 
later times, the invasions of Tartar hordes, may be received as a very 
strong presumption that such would inevitably have been the conse- 
quences of similar invasions at a more remote period. 

Leibnitz, however, observes, " Sane si ratum est homines Europae ex 
Oriente quasi solis motum secutos venisse ; apparet hominum examina 
instar sacri veris, ex Scythia progressa, Tanai, Istroque transmissis, 
partim in occidentem, id est in Illyricum, Pannoniam, Germaniamque 
penetrasse, unde tandem in Italiam, Galliam, Hispaniam progressi 
sunt posted ; partim ad meridiem flexos in Thraciam, Macedoniam 
Grseciamque vertisse : ubi serius ex Phoenicia et Egypto coloniae 
supervenere ; unde litterae Graecorum Phceniciis, sacra etiam Egyptiis, 

* RennelPs Geographical System of Herodotus, p. 46, 47. 

H 2 



52 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

debentur. Sed Scythse fundamentum (ut sic dicam) jecere gentis 
Graecorum, ut Celtae Italorum. Scytharum nomine hoc loco peran- 
tiquos Euxini maris accolas intelligimus, quocunque nomine venerint. 
Cimmerios illic Homerus* collocavit, hos a Scythis Herodotus 
distinxit." f 

But, adopting the name of Scythians in this restricted sense, it is ob- 
vious that between them and the rest of Europe were interposed the 
numerous and far extended people of Thracia ; and that, until they had 
conquered or displaced them, the Scythians could not have exerted any 
influence over the languages and civilisation of Europe. Of this ob- 
jection most writers seem to be aware, and they therefore attempt to 
prove, either that Thracia was occupied by the Scythians, or that the 
Thracians were the same people as the latter. But, if this last sup- 
position be admitted, it seems evident that the term Scythian, the use 
of which is derived from Herodotus, ought to be discontinued ; be- 
cause he distinguishes most clearly the Thracians from the Scythians, 
and even ascribes an Asiatic origin to the latter ; for he expressly says, 

Eo-n ae koci aXXog Xoyog f/uv code' tu fA.uXt(TToc Xeyopevu avrog 7rpo<r)tet[Aixr Y,uv&<xg 
rovg vouaoocg, oitctovTag ev tyi Acnr, TtoXtfJico 7reto~9evTeg wrro Ma.(ro~ot.yeTeu)v i ot^scSui 
SiuQavreg TTOTUftov Apa^ea £7n yvjv tv\v K.i[/,[/.ep>viv' tvjv yap vvv vz^ovtm £>cu$a/, 
uvTvi XsytTcti roiva.Xot.ioy stvcu Kipptpiuv. J It is, however, impossible to learn 
from subsequent writers any further circumstances respecting these 
Scythians, than what has been related by Herodotus ; or even, as far 
as I have been able to ascertain, any particulars respecting the eastern 
part of the country, which he represents them to have inhabited. 

* The words of Homer are, 

H^ sj 7re»p«S' ihuvs SuSuppoov ilxsavojo* 

EvfiaSs Kjju.ju.epiwv ai/Spwv Sy^os te, 7roXij t£, 

Hep» xa« veipeXjj KSKuXufx^svoi' ouSe ttot' «utooj 

'HsXtoj <pcte8wv sTndepxiTcti axTivs<r<riv, 

Ov$" ottot a.v OTeip£]jo-» 7rpoj ovpuvov CMTTSpOeVTX, 

Oofl' otccv «\J/ S7T» ycticiv sot' ovpctvoQsv TrpoTpavrjTUf 

A\\' £*i Vu£ OKOy] T£T«T«J §SlA0J<7» SpOTOiCI. 

f Leibnitii Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 189. t Herod, lib. iv. c. 1 ] . 



ON THE SCYTHIANS. 53 

If, however, the other opinion is adopted, it will perhaps be urged 
that it was anterior to the time of Herodotus that the Euxine Scythians 
introduced their language, manners, and religion into Europe. In this 
case, being deserted by all authority, the hypothesis must depend en- 
tirely on its own internal probability, and on any collateral circumstances 
that may have an unforced tendency to support it. But whence and 
at what time did these Scythians come and establish themselves on the 
Euxine * ? and on what grounds is it assumed that they were, twelve 
or thirteen hundred years before Christ, so numerous and powerful' as 
to effect the conquests enumerated by Leibnitz ? Until, however, these 
questions are satisfactorily answered, it must seem utterly improbable 
that a people who had attained no further stage of civilisation than that 
described by Herodotus and who were divided into a number of dis- 
tinct and widely dispersed tribes, could possibly have exerted any 
influence whatever over the nations of Europe. Nor, had they 
ever conquered other countries, and introduced into them their 
language and manners, can any cause be assigned, which could 
have prevented some traces at least of such important changes from 
having been preserved until the time of Herodotus. But, on the con- 
trary, he carefully distinguishes the Euxine Scythians from the neigh- 
bouring people, and expressly declares, c O <Je itovTog EvPavog, e<p' ov eo-.Tpa- 

reveTO Aaps<r?, '/a^zuv Trotcrzuiv Tra^e^erou, e^co tov ZkvQikov, s9veas otfAadeiTToiTot' ovte 
yap sQvog tvTog tov TIovtov ouSev txopev TrpoCc&XttrOo&t trotptrjg 7rspi f ovte otvdpot Xoytov 
oi$oc{a.£v yevopivov 7rape,? tov EkvQikov eOveog, icon Ai/ap^apax- And he further 
remarks, 3eiviK0«rt vopotionri kui ovtoi (ol ZkvQui} aivug xpoto~()ou (pevyovtrt, fty toi 

* Jornandes, indeed, says, " Ex hac igitur Scanzia insula quasi officina gentium, aut certe 
velut vagina nationum, Gothi quondam memorantur egressi .... Haec igitur pars Gothorum, 
quae apud Filimer, dicitur in terras Ovim emenso amne transposita, optatum potita solum. Nee 
mora, ilico ad gentem Spalorutn adveniunt, consertoque praelio, victoriam adipiscuntur : 
exindeque jam veluti victores ad extremam Scythiae partem, quae Pontico Mari vicina est, 
properant: quemadmodum et in priscis eorum carminibus, pene historico ritu, in commune 
recolitur : quod et Ablabius descriptor Gothorum gentis egregius verissima adtestatur 
historia." — Jornandes de Reb. Get. cap. iv. 

But Leibnitz himself observes, " Ego Jornandis autoritatem non plane contemno, etsi non 
semper tutam fatear, praesertim in remotis, nee satis cohaerentia narrare deprehendam." — 
Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 196. 



54 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

yt tuv ccXXyXuv, ' EXXvjvikokti Je xo&t yKHTTot, ug $<s$e£oiv Ava^^c-tg tb kcci ^evrspoi 
oajTtg LKV^yg. * 

The reasoning of Leibnitz, in opposition to such authority and to 
such arguments as irresistibly proceed from it, must be admitted to be 
altogether improbable and inconclusive. " Contra Germanos," says 
he, " cum ab oriente utique hue venerint, ex Scythia potius et Ponti 
Euxini vicinia ad Danubium Rhenumque venisse, vel ideo credibilius 
est quod certis testimoniis veterum constat in illis regionibus olim 
habitasse Germanicas gentes. f Quin etsi deesset antiquorum autoritas, 
tamen res ipsa quod dicimus comprobaret. Nam ante pauca adhuc 
cum Genuenses in Taurica dominarentur, illic habitabant Germani, et 
vix ante seculum quoque Germanicae reliquiae in eadem religione 
superstites memorantur. Et licet hodie fortasse nulla amplius ad 
Pontum Euxinum supersint vestigia Germanorum, non magis quam 
in Finnonia, et rerum conversionibus nihil novum sit stirpitus tandem 
evelli veteres colonos, multum tamen interest inter ea, qute compro- 

BANTUR NON MINUS QUAM DICUNTUR, ET EA QUJE DICUNTUR TANTUM J 
ITEMQUE INTER MIGRATIONES SEDESQUE, quarum diu adhuc superfuere 
INDICIA, ET EAS QUARUM NEC EXTAT MEMOR1A, NEC RELIQUIiE ALIQUANDO 

extitisse memorantur .... Quod si ergo Germanicas gentes prius ad 
Tanaim et Euxinum Pontum, vicinaque in Scythia habitavere, quam 
in Finnonia et Suecia, cuivis jam aestimandum relinquo, utrum factu 
credituque sit facilius, a Tanai ad Danubium Albimque et Rhenum 
rectissimo apertissimoque, quin etiam commodissimo usitatissimoque 
itinere ventum fuisse, quam omne genus Germanicum mirificis an- 
fractibus per Sarmatiam ad Finnones, atque inde vel per Lapponas vel 
per Botnicum mare ad Suecos, atque hinc deraura in Germaniam 
nostram fuisse traductum. Ut nesciam an quicquam ab omni specie 
veri alienius fingi possit."^: But after the very just remarks of 
Leibnitz, in the preceding quotation, which are printed in capital 

* Herod, lib. iv. c. 46. 76. 

f But not a single ancient writer, that I am acquainted with, has made such an assertion ; 
and the writers of the Ancient Universal History quote no other authority for it than that of 
Jornandes. 

J Leibnitii Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 201, 202. 



ON THE SCYTHIANS. 55 

letters, any further observations on this hypothesis must be un- 
necessary. 

To this system, at the same time, there is one insuperable objection, 
which its supporters do not seem to have thought it requisite to 
obviate. For, previous to these migrations of the Euxine Scythians, 
was Europe peopled, or was it not ? The first of these suppositions is 
not, I believe, maintained by any writer ; and, in the latter case, as 
the Thracians, from the days of Homer, have been represented by all 
ancient authors as a numerous, powerful, and warlike people, in what 
manner were they conquered by the Scythians, and nevertheless con- 
tinued to preserve a distinct name and a distinct character from the 
earliest dawn of tradition and history ? * The impossibility of satis- 
factorily accounting, on the hypothesis of Leibnitz, for these re- 
markable and undeniable circumstances, has induced some writers to 
attempt identifying the Scythians and Thracians as the same people : 
but their arguments are necessarily founded on mere conjecture, 
because the concurrent authority of ancient authors most clearly proves 
the contrary. j~ In the place, therefore, of authority and argument, 
these writers produce nothing but groundless assertion ; and thus the 
refutation of their opinion is rendered not only irksome but unsatis- 
tory, as there are no first principles by which the extravagancy of an 
hypothesis can be conclusively demonstrated. 

Of this opinion the latest maintainer is, I believe, Dr. Jamieson ; but 
the only reasons which he assigns in support of it are the following : 
" The Thracians were of Scythic origin. As the Mosaic designation 
Gomer seems to be retained in that of Cimmerii, Cimbri, or Cumri ; 
there is a great probability in the idea generally adopted by the 
learned, that the Thracians were the posterity of Tiras, or rather 

* I am aware, that the exact period when the Thracians extended themselves to the 
north of the Danube is a doubtful point, and, therefore, this argument would not strictly 
apply to prove the non-occupation of Germany by the Euxine Scythians ; but it incon- 
trovertibly shows that they could not have penetrated into Greece and Italy until they had 
previously possessed themselves of Thracia. 

f To quote authorities on this point must surely be unnecessary ; and I will, therefore, 
content myself by referring generally to Homer, Herodotus, and Strabo. 



56 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

Thiras, who is last mentioned by the sacred historian among the sons 
of Japhet. The learned Bochart has observed, that fy>a|, the name 
given by the Greeks to a Thracian, is supposed to be merely Thiras, 
the Greek S, corresponding to samech of the Phoenicians, and holding its 
place in the alphabet." * Dr. Jamieson, however, proves satisfactorily 
that the Getse were Thracians, and that it is very probable, if not 
certain, that the Getag and Goths were the same people : but his 
reasons for identifying the Getse with the Scythians are futile and in- 
conclusive ; for he argues thus, " That the Getse and Scythians were 
the same people is attested by incontrovertible evidence. On the 
northern side of the Danube, opposite to the territory occupied by the 
Scythians, and in the angle forming a part of Thrace, there was a small 
nation in the time of Herodotus, who bore the name of Getse. But 
this designation appears to have been the generic name given to 
various branches of this great people, and most probably assumed by 
themselves. We accordingly find it conjoined with different pre- 
positive terms, which seem designed to mark its definite application to 
one race as distinguished from another. Thus we read of the Massa- 
Getse, the Thyssa-Getse, and the Tyro-Getse; it is obvious Getse must 
have been the primary denomination. Herodotus speaks of this 
people, who lived on the opposite side of the Danube, without seem- 
ing TO HAVE SUPPOSED THAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY THE SAME AS THE 

Scythians, calling them Thracians." f But all ancient writers most 

* Hermes Scythicus, p. 12. 

Gibbon very justly remarks, " Among the nations who have adopted the Mosaic history 
of the world, the ark of Noah has been of the same use as was formerly to the Greeks and 
Romans the siege of Troy. On a narrow basis of acknowledged truth, an immense but 
rude superstructure of fable has been erected ; and the wild Irishman, as well as the wild 
Tartar, could point out the individual son of Japhet from whose sons his ancestors were 
lineally descended. The last century abounded with antiquarians of profound learning and 
easy faith, who, by the dim light of legends and traditions, of conjectures and etymologies, 
qonducted the grandchildren of Noah from the tower of Babel to the extremities of the 
globe." — Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol. i. p. 350. 

f Hermes Scythicus, p. 8. 

The idea of a person writing in Edinburgh pretending to correct, without the assistance 
of other ancient authors, the observations made by Herodotus 3200 years previously, is 
irresistibly ludicrous ; but, however stubborn facts or authorities may be, they must either 
bend or break if they oppose the hypothesis which any writer may think proper to adopt. 






ON THE SCYTHIANS 



57 



clearly distinguish the Getse from the Massagetse, by placing them in 
countries widely remote from each other. On Dr. Jamieson's own 
verbal argument, also, the primitive word must undoubtedly have 
existed first; and the race which it was intended to distinguish, by 
affixing a prepositive term to the common name, must have branched 
off from some parent stem, before such a distinction could possibly have 
become requisite. This very argument, therefore, proves the direct 
contrary of the opinion in support of which it is adduced ; for if the 
Getse were not Scythians, but Thracians, it necessarily follows that the 
Thracians also were a distinct people from the Scythians. 

If, however, there is no ancient authority whatever, which in the 
slightest degree proves, or even asserts, that the Euxine Scythians in- 
troduced into Europe their language, manners, and religion ; and if the 
very position alone of the country which they inhabited conclusively 
demonstrates that it precluded them from extending their influence 
beyond its limits, their real origin is a question of no importance. 
Whether, therefore, they were autochthones, or the descendants of 
Magog, or emigrants from Persia, or subjects of the Celtic empire 
founded by Saturn, or Goths from Scandinavia, is perfectly immaterial : 
but, to prevent their being identified with the Tartars *, it may be 
necessary to consider this point ; for the derivation of the people, 
languages, and civilisation of Europe, from the wilds of Tartary, is not 
one of the least astonishing aberrations of the human mind. 

On this point M. Abel Remusat, in his very interesting work, Re- 
cherches sur les Langues Tartares, observes, " Voila les Tartares de- 
venus, sous differens noms, les precepteurs des nations et les bien- 

* " Les peuples qui habitent ces vastes contrees de la haute Asie, bornees au midi par 
PInde, la Chine, et la Perse, a l'orient par la mer du Japon, a l'occident par les fleuves qui 
se jettent dans la mer Caspienne et le Pont-Euxin, au nord enfin par la mer Glaciale, sont 

connus sous le nom vulgaire et collectif de Tartares Quoi qu'il en soit de Porigine de 

ce nom des Tatars, les Europeens, qui Pont legerement altere, s'en servent indifferemment 
pour designer une foule de nations a. demi civilisees, qui different beaucoup entre elles, ainsi 
que la suite de cet ouvrage le fera voir. Dans ce sens, je crois qu'il est bon de conserver a 
ces nations le nom collectif de Tartares, quoique corrompu, preferablement a celui de Tatars, 
qui paroit plus correct, mais qui appartient a un seul tribu ne doit pas servir a designer les 
autres tribus en general." — Recherches sur les Langues Tartares, p. 1.3. 



58 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

faiteurs de l'humanite : ces vastes contrees couvertes des forets, ou 
rendues desertes par les sables, que parcourent des tribus de nomades 
grossiers, les voila presentees sous un jour nouveau, qui les rend dignes 

d'etre etudiees avec attention D'ailleurs, il ne faut pas croire que 

les idees de Bailly soient entrees dans la tombe avec lui : il y a 
plusieurs personnes actuellement vivantes qui ont tente de les repro- 
duce sous des formes variees, etqui se trouveroient peut-etre offensees, 
si Ton decidoit que leurs opinions ne valent pas la peine d'etre re- 
futees."* 

This question might be at once decided by the irrefutable testimony 
of language, could it be determined whether or not a nomadic people 
would preserve their original language uncorrupted and unchanged 
from time immemorial. But the wants and ideas of such a people 
being extremely limited, and their intercourse with other nations being 
precluded by their peculiar mode of life, there would seem to be no 
conceivable causes which could produce any alteration in the primeval 
tongue, after it was once formed. The Bedoweens of Arabia are con- 
sidered to speak the purest Arabic ; and if the purity of a language 
consists in its not deviating from its original structure, and in its not 
admitting exotic inflexions or words, it is precisely amongst a nomadic 
people that such purity might be most reasonably expected to be found. 
But that the wilds of Tartary have been occupied by the same race of 
men from the earliest dawn of tradition and history is undeniable ; and, 
consequently, it seems not improbable that the various dialects in use 
among the Tartars at this day are radically the same as those which 
were spoken by their ancestors from the remotest antiquity. In this 
case I may be permitted, from having carefully examined the words 
contained in Klaproth's Asia Polyglotta, and from having been in the 
habit of using Meninski's Turkish Lexicon f, to observe that not a 
Tartar word can be identified with any terms contained in the Arabic, 

* Recherches, &c. Discours Preliminaire, p. v. ix. 

f The Turkish has adopted numerous Arabic and Persian words ; but it will, perhaps, 
be admitted, that a person acquainted with these languages can find no difficulty in dis- 
tinguishing such words as belong to them from the original Tartar ones. 



ON THE SCYTHIANS. 59 

Persian, Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Celtic, or Teutonic, languages, and 
thence to conclude that it was not from the Tartars that Europe de- 
rived either its languages or civilisation. But, on a subject with which 
I am so slightly acquainted, the reader will no doubt prefer the opinion 
of a distinguished Oriental scholar, who has made it his particular 
study. The judicious remarks, therefore, and important conclusions 
contained in the following quotation, will amply compensate for its 
unusual length : — 

" Essayons maintenant de convertir en observations generales, les 
faits particuliers rassembles dans les Recherches qu'on vient de lire, 
et rappelons des resultats que le lecteur pourroit avoir perdus de vue, 
afin de fortifier les conclusions que nous croyons etre en droit de tirer, 
en finissant ce volume. Nous osons presenter comme certains les 
points suivans, qui avoient ete jusqu'a present avarices sans examen, et 
quelquefois revoques en doute sans motifs suffisans. 

" Dans l'etat actuel, les langues de la Tartarie sont au nombre de 
quatre principales, avec quelques dialectes. Les mots de ces quatre 
langues, particulierement ceux qui designent des objets de premiere 
necessite, et qui constituent le fond des idiomes, sont radicalement 
differens, et ne se rapprochent non plus d'aucune autre langue 
connue. 

" Les ressemblances qu'on observe entre ces quatre idiomes portent, 
presque en entier, sur des mots destines a exprimer des objets d'arts, 
ou des titres de dignites, ou des idees philosophiques et theologiques ; 
elles attestent les efFets d'un melange produit par le commerce, la 
guerre, l'influence politique et religieuse. II en est absolument de meme 
des mots etrangers qui se sont introduits dans les langues de la Tar- 
taric 

" Les difFerentes ecritures qui ont servi a peindre ces langues, ont 
toutes ete apportees du dehors, par 1'erTet de circonstances dont 
l'histoire a conserve le souvenir. L'adoption la plus ancienne ne re- 
monte pas au-dela de Fere Chretienne. 

" Les formes grammaticales sont en petit nombre etpeu compliquees. 
Les rapports des noms s'y marquent par des particules affixes ou post- 

1 2 



60 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

positions, sans erase. Les verbes n'ont point en general de conju- 
gaisons. Les temps les plus usites sont impersonnels. La construction 
est rigoureusement inverse. 

" La litterature de tous les peuples Tartares se compose en entier 
d'emprunts faits, assez recemment, aux nations voisines, aux Chinois, 
aux Hindous, aux occidentaux. Leurs livres sont des traductions, ou 
tout au plus des imitations de ceux des peuples polices et agricoles qui 
habitent les "contrees meridionales. Ce que nous disons ici de la 
litterature, doits'appliquer a toutes les branches des connoissances 
humaines, mais en particulier aux idees philosophiques et religieuses. 

" Les conclusions a tirer de ces faits, qui reposent maintenant sur 
une base inebranlable, seront pour laplupart negatives : dans ces sortes 
de matieres, il est plus ordinaire d'avoir d'anciennes erreurs a com- 
battre, que des verites nouvelles a etablir. 

" Aucun ouvrage historique, aucun monument, aucune tradition, 
chez les Tartares ou chez les nations qui les ont le mieux connus, ne per- 
mettent de faire remonter l'etat de demi-civilisation ou nous les voyons 
parvenus a une epoque plus ancienne que le ll e . siecle avant notre 
ere. 

" A v cette epoque, les missionnaires Hindous, etablis dans la partie 
meridionale de la Tartarie, a Khasigar, a Khotan, a Yerkiyang, com- 
mencoient a y repandre les premieres notions des sciences et des arts. 
L'ecriture indienne, la religion de Bouddhah, les Tibetains, lesnomades 
du nord, n'ont connu tous ces objets que beaucoup plus tard. 

" L' opinion qui placeroit en Tartarie le berceau du genre humain 
avec le peuple primitif, ou ses descendans immediats, ou la patrie des 
inventeurs des sciences, de l'astronomie, des alphabets de l'Asie, ou 
merae l'origine des doctrines de l'Hindoustan, de Bouddhah, ou des 
Hindous eux-memes, ou des Chinois, cette opinion non seulement 
ne repose sur aucun fait positif, mais elle se trouve, a la bien examiner, 
entierement inconciliable avec les observations philologiques et les 
traditions historiques de toutes les nations de l'Asie, a eommencer par 
les Tartares eux-memes. 

" Le chamanisme n'a pris naissance ni dans la Tartarie, ni, selon 



ON THE SCYTHIANS. 



61 



raon opinion, dans la Bactriane. Les Samaneens ont penetre assez 
tard dans la premiere de ces conferees ; ils y onttoujours ete etrangers; 
ils n'en ont jamais converti completement les habitans. Beaucoup de 
ceux-ci sont restes attaches a leur culte primitif, qui est le plus simple 
de tous les cultes, l'adoration du Ciel visible et des Esprits, avec dif- 
ferentes pratiques superstitieuses. 

" Enfin (et ceci, ne tenant qu'indirectement a l'objet de ces Re- 
cherches, meriteroit d'etre examine dans un ouvrage a part), les re- 
ligions qui ont eu cours dans la Tartarie, n'avoient pas, non plus que 
1'art d'ecrire, pris naissance dans les conferees du nord. Le samaneisme, 
ou bouddhisme primitif, la philosophie de Confucius, le magisme, le 
manicheisme, le nestorianisme, le musulmanisme, le lamisme enfin, ou 
le bouddhisme reforme, y ont ete successivement introduits, a-peu-pres 
dans l'ordre ou je viens de les nommer, et cet ordre est quelque chose 
de bien important a constater ; car, si c'est pour nous une question 
historique de pure curiosite, que de savoir si Bouddhah est ne dans 
l'Hindoustan ou dans le Tibet, ou si l'alphabet Devanagari a ete invente 
sur les bords du Gange ou dans les montagnes d' Altai', e'en est 
une de consequence que de determiner a, qui appartient la priorite, dans 
les traits de ressemblance incontestable qui s'observent entre la discipline 
et la hierarchie des Lamas et celles de l'E'glise Romaine. Cette 
question, au reste, ne sauroit embarrasser une personne qui nous aura 
suivis dans nos Recherches, ou qui saura remonter aux sources ou 
nous avons puise. 

" Ainsi tout ce qui, chez les Tartares, est au-dessus de ces pre- 
mieres notions qui distinguent l'homme de la brute, leur est venu, a des 
epoques connues, de leur communication avec d'autres nations plus in- 
struites. Quafere ou cinq families se sont repandues et multipliers sur 
d'immenses espaces. Les hommes qui en sont sortis ont fait quelques 
efforts pour s'eclairer ; ils ont cultive quelques sciences, mais ils n'en 
ont invente aucune. Ils n'ont ete ni tout-a-fait aussi grossiers que 
le supposoit Voltaire, ni, a, beaucoup pres, aussi savans que l'imaginoient 
BufFon et Bailly. Nous sommes done obliges d'en revenir, au sujet de 
ces nations, a l'idee que nous en ont donnee les premiers auteurs qui 



Q2 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

en ont parle, les voyageurs du moyen age, les ecrivains orientaux, les 
missionnaires en Chine, Bergeron, Deguignes, Deshauteraies, Mosheim, 
Lequien, les deux Muller, Bayer, et tant d'autres. Ces conclusions sont 
loin d'etre aussi brillantes que les hypotheses par lesquelles on a 
cherche a suppleer a la connoissance precise des faits, tant qu'on a cru 
impossible de l'acquerir ; mais il n'est pas inutile de les reproduire, 
puisqu'elles ont etc plusieurs fois contestees par des ecrivains sys- 
tematiques. On avoit trop compte sur le defaut de monumens, sur le 
vague et l'obscurite des traditions. L'antiquite de la haute Asie etoit 
en quelque sorte la region des hypotheses. On en connoitra la futilite, 
et Ton s'instruira suffisamraent sur l'histoire de la Tartarie, quand on 
voudra la chercher dans les ecrivains Chinois, que nous Font conservee. 
Quelque peu detailles que soient les renseignemens qu'ils nous four- 
nissent, c'est toujours apprendre quelque chose, que de determiner 
precisement jusqu'ou Ton peut apprendre, et meme de s'assurer qu'on 
n'a rien a apprendre du tout ; mais cette ignorance ne s'acquiert qu'avec 
peine, et la fausse science coute beaucoup moins. Rien n'est plus 
facile que de jeter au hasard des suppositions sur le papier, et d'annoncer 
avec mystere qu'on pourra les soutenir un jour. 11 faut ensuite des 
volumes pour refuter une seule parole de ce genre ; c'est done rendre 
quelque service aux sciences historiques que de dissiper les tenebres 
qui couvrent certaines parties de leur domaine, et ou l'imagination se 
joue en liberte. Resserrer le champ de 1'erreur, c'est, en quelque sorte, 
agrandir celui de la verite." * 

But it is much to be regretted that M. Abel Remusat should have 
published this work before he had collected and fully considered all the 
materials which he deemed necessary for its completion ; because he 
has, perhaps inadvertently, admitted into it the following two passages, 
which tend strongly to invalidate the very conclusive remarks con- 
tained in the preceding quotation : for he states, " Les faits que j'ai 
rassembles sur ces dernieres sont assez nombreux, et assez positive- 
ment enonces dans les ecrivains Chinois, pour qu'il ne reste aucun 
doute a cet egard : et quelque paradoxale que paroisse cet assertion, je 

* Recherches sur les Langues Tartares, p. 394. 



ON THE SCYTHIANS. g 3 

crois qu'il demeurera prouve que la famille des nations Gothiques a 
jadis occupe de grands espaces en Tartarie : que plusieurs de ses 
branches ont habite dans la Transoxane, et jusques dans les montagnes 
d' Altai", et qu'elles y ont ete bien connus des peuples de l'Asie orien- 
tale, lesquels ne pouvoient manquer d'etre frappes de la singularite de 
leurs langues, de leurs chevelures blondes, de leurs yeux bleus, de la 
blancheur de leur teint, signes si remarkables au milieu des hommes 
basanes, aux yeux bruns, et aux cheveux noirs, qui les ont definitive- 
ment remplaces. On jugera si ce que j'advance est trop hasarde, 
quand on aura lu les preuves que j'ai recueillies. Mais quoi qu'on 
puisse en penser, on se rappellera, j'espere, que j'ai seulement voulu 
dire que des nations Gothiques ont eu des etablissemens dans le centre 
de la Tartarie, et nullement que les Gothes en fussent originaires. Une 
critique malveillante un peu eclairee pourroit seule me preter une 
opinion qui, si je l'emettois sans la soutenir de preuves nombreuses, 
seroit a bon droit qualifiee d'absurdite."* In another place, however, 
he observes, " La race Gothique d'une part, et la race Turke de l'autre, 
ont precede de plusieurs siecles, dans leur conversion au bouddhisme, 
les Mongols et les Tongous, situes trop loin a l'orient, de la contree 
ou la communication est possible entre la Tartarie et l'lnde. Laissons 
a d'autres le soin d'examiner les effets de cette communication 
par rapport aux nations gothiques."f 

It will be obvious that these two passages are apparently inconsistent 
with the opinion which M. Abel Remusat has stated in the conclusion 
of his work. It will, therefore, be necessary that he should either 
retract this very questionable account of the Goths having been settled 
at some remote period in Tartary, and of their having been converted 
to Buddhism ; or that, after having satisfactorily proved this singular 
circumstance by other authority than that of Chinese writers, he should 
modify his present conclusions by distinctly pointing out the influence 
which this Tartaro- Gothic people exerted over the population, civilisa- 
tion, and religion of Europe. But it cannot have escaped the author, 
that if Buddhism was introduced into Tartary a short time only before 

* Recherches, &c. Discours Preliminaire, p. xiv. t Ibid. P« 289. 



6 4 ON THE SCYTHIANS. 

the Christian era, and that if these Tartaro-Goths were converted to 
this religion, their subsequent migration from Tartar y must have oc- 
curred at a highly enlightened period of the world; and, consequently, 
if no trace of such an event can be found in ancient authors, not even 
in Jornandes, their silence, though negative testimony, will, in the 
opinion of most persons, be considered as sufficient to disprove any 
accounts of it which may be produced from Chinese writers. It 
would be also necessary to show that Tartar words exist in some one of 
the Gothic dialects ; for, otherwise, whatever may have become of these 
Tartaro-Goths, if they ever existed, it must appear highly improbable 
that they ever returned to Europe. The introduction, however, of 
Buddhism into Tartary having taken place eight or nine centuries after 
the poems of Homer were written, and consequently after the Greek, 
Latin, and Teutonic languages were formed, as is so clearly proved by 
the Sanscrit words that exist in them, any migrations from Tartary at 
so comparatively recent a period deserve not consideration in investi- 
gating the origin and affinity of nations and languages. 



65 



CHAP. VI. 

THE CELTIC LANGUAGE, 

Pelloutier commences his history of the Celts with these words : — * 
" Les Celtes ont ete connus anciennement sous le nom general de 
Scythes." Wachter observes, — " Nunc ordo tangit Celtas, utpote 
Scythis et Phrygibus setate inferiores, nee ante Bellum Trojanum 
auditos. Nam primis temporibus floruit nomen Scythicum, deinde 

innotuit Phrygium, Phrygio successit Celticum Phryges olim va- 

stissimum imperium tenuisse, et coloniis suis non solum partem Asiae, 
sed etiam Grasciam, Thraciam, et totum pene occidentem occupasse, 
illustris Abbas Pezronius in Antiquitatibus Celticis tanto argumen- 
torum copia et perspicuitate demonstravit, ut difficile sit illud negare."* 
But Pinkerton maintains, " that the Scythians were neither Celts, Sar- 
matians, nor Tartars, no more than a horse is an elephant, a lion, or a 
tiger, but a horse ; so the Scythians were Scythians, a distinct, peculiar, 
and marked people."f It is, however, singular that the supporters of 
the Celtic and Gothic hypotheses should both concur in deriving the 
population and languages of Europe from a people respecting whom 
Pelloutier very justly observes, — " Les Celtes descendent veritable- 
ment des Scythes, c'est-a~dire, d'un peuple sauvage et barbare, qui 
n'avoit encore aucune connoissance des avantages que Thorn me peut 
tirer de son industrie, ou du pays qu'il habite."^ But I have, perhaps, 
evinced in the preceding chapter that, if either the Celts or Goths were 
Scythians, it could not be from them that Europe received its inhabit- 
ants and civilisation. Whether, however, the Goths were Scythians 
will be examined in the ninth chapter. In this, therefore, I shall con- 

* Wachteri Glossarium, in praefatio. 
f Dissertation on the Scythians or Goths, preface, p. vii. 
If. Histoire des Celtes, vol. i. p. 123. 

K 



qq THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 

fine myself to a consideration of the Celtic hypothesis, the discussion 
of which is rendered at least more tangible than the Scythian ; because 
sufficient remains of the Celtic tongue have been preserved, as must 
clearly demonstrate whether or not it has an affinity to any other 
language: for, if its examination on rational, and not Celtic, principles 
clearly proves that no such affinity exists, it must necessarily follow 
that Europe is not indebted to a Celtic people for its population and 
languages. By such means alone, it must be obvious, since there 
is no authority of any kind which supports the pretensions of the 
Celtic people to a remote antiquity, can this point be satisfactorily 
decided. In the following remarks, therefore, historical researches 
must be exchanged for the uninviting examination of etymological 
affinities.* 

To a person, however, who approaches, free from all prejudice, the 
much disputed question respecting the origin of the Celts, and the 
country which they may have primitively or subsequently inhabited, 
it must appear passing strange how such a difference of opinion could 
ever have arisen ; for no one, in the least acquainted with ancient 
authors, will deny the justness of these remarks of Adelung : — " The 
ancient Greeks knew nothing more of these people than that they 
lived in the west ; and they were so uncritical as to include among the 
Celts all the people who lived in the west, from the Oder to the mouth 
of the Tagus, and consequently to consider them all as belonging to 
one branch of the same stem.f The Romans did not fail to avail them- 
selves of the better opportunity which they had of distinguishing these 

* I ought, perhaps, to observe, that I do not possess any knowledge of this language, and 
that the opinion which I have formed respecting it is founded entirely on a careful examin- 
ation of the Dictionaries of Bullet, Cour de Gebelin, Davies, and O'Brien. I have not 
been able to procure Shaw's Gaelic Dictionary, but Adelung describes it as having no other 
merit than that of having been copied from the good Irish Dictionary of O'Brien. 

f To the same purpose, Strabo, in the following passage : — <E>y)/x* yap xa-va tyjv tow apyamv 
'Ehkrjvcov 8o£av, wvnep tu Ttpoc, Boppav pspr) t« yviap^a evt ovopuTi Sxoflaj exxkovv, rj NojxaSaj, w$ 
'H/A>)poj* (xTTspov 8e xai toiv •xpo$"E l <nrepa.v yvwQsvTwv, KsXrot, xai l§r\pe;, xai <rvfj.(j,ixTws Kskr^y\psc, 
xai KskTO<rxvQott 7rpo<rYiyopeuovTO, y<p' Iv ovopx twv xudexcurTci eQvwv t«ttoju.=vo>v 8(« t>]v ayvoictv. — 
Strabo, ed. Amstel. p. 33. 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. q*j 

people from one another, according to their customs, origin, and 
language ; but, notwithstanding, they too often, either through ignorance 
or indifference, preserved the erroneous general names, and thus in- 
cluded the Iberians, Germans, and Thracians among the Celts. Most 
unpardonable it is that modern philologists and historians, who 
have so incalculably better means of information, should adopt their 
opinions ; particularly when it is so very improbable that so great a 
part of the world should have been occupied by one people and one 
language."* 

But, if ancient writers afford not any information respecting the 
early history of the Celts, it must necessarily follow that all the theories 
on this subject rest on no other foundation than mere conjecture. 
Nor could such conjectures have ever assumed even the appearance of 
plausibility, had not the supporters of the Celtic hypothesis contrived 
to confuse together in a most ingenious manner the history of every 
ancient people ; and thus enabled themselves to ascribe to the Celts 
alone the migrations and actions which properly belonged to very 
distinct races of men. Before, however, it can be admitted that the 
Scythians, Persians, Phrygians, Thracians, &c. were Celts, some proof 
must be given in support of this supposition : but history is totally 
silent on this subject ; and, on the contrary, from the earliest times of 
which there is an}' tradition, not a single assertion or even surmise that 
these people were either Celts, or the descendants of Celts, can be 
found in any ancient writer. 

In the absence, therefore, of such authority, it may seem that this 
question might be at once decided by the irrefutable testimony of 
language : but, unfortunately, it is admitted by both parties that the 
remains of the Celtic tongue, which are still preserved, abound in 
Greek, Latin, and Teutonic words ; and it therefore becomes indis- 
pensable to determine, in the first place, whether these words are 
original or exotic. For it must be obvious that, if the Celts never in- 
habited the countries which were originally or subsequently occupied 

* Adel ling's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 31. 
K 2 



68 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 



by the Greek, Latin, and Teutonic people, their languages could not 
possibly have become affected by the Celtic, unless they had either 
maintained a frequent friendly intercourse with the Celts, or had been 
conquered by them : but it appears fully, from the whole course of 
ancient tradition and history, that no such intercourse or conquest 
ever took place ; and, consequently, if the Greek, Latin, Teutonic, and 
Celtic people were not originally one and the same race of men, it 
must necessarily follow that, as the Celts have been subdued by the 
Romans and Germans, as history attests, it is from them that the Celts 
have received the foreign words with which their language abounds, 
and not the Romans and Germans who received these words from the 
Celts. 

Were it admitted, therefore, that the Celts possessed, at some remote 
period, Asia Minor and Europe, it cannot be denied that, at the time 
when they first became distinctly known to history, they were sur- 
rounded by people who differed from them in language, customs, and 
religion. For, as Bishop Percy observes, — " Caesar, whose judgment 
and penetration will be disputed by none but a person blinded by 
hypothesis, and whose long residence in Gaul gave him better means 
of being informed than almost any of his countrymen ; Caesar expressly 
assures us that the Celts, or common inhabitants of Gaul, ' differed, in 
language, customs, and laws,' from the Belgae on the one hand, who 
were chiefly a Teutonic people*, and from the inhabitants of Aquitaine 
on the other, who, from their vicinity to Spain, were probably of 
Iberian race. Caesar positively affirms that the nations of Gaul differed 
from those of Germany in their manners, and in many other particulars, 
which he has enumerated at length : and this assertion is not thrown 

* With regard to the Belgae the author of the Vindication of the Celts observes, in 
p. 87. — " In no one instance has Caesar himself called the Belgae Germans ; but plainly 
distinguishes them from the four tribes who are particularly designated as Germans. 
Had the Belgae been wholly German, we should have found infallible marks in his 
description that they were so ; and he would not have made the distinction which he 
constantly^ does, of the Germans as a different people. We submit the question to any 
impartial person, who will read the account of Caesar's wars with the Belgae, whether the 
smallest traces can be discovered that they were all Germans, or, on the contrary, whether 
they were not for the most part evidently and palpably Celts." 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 



69 



out at random, like the passages brought by Cluverius against it ; but 
is coolly and cautiously made, when he is going to draw the characters 
of both nations in an exact and well finished portrait, which shows him 
to have studied the genius and manners of both people with great 
attention, and to have been completely master of his subject."* Strabo, 
also, clearly shows that the Iberians, or inhabitants of Spain, were a 
distinct people from the Celts f ; and no remark can be necessary to 
evince that the Etrurians and Latins differed from them in every respect. 
But, against such conclusive authority, the advocates of the Celtic hypo- 
thesis can produce nothing but vague and unfounded conjectures, which 
they are obliged to support by giving a sense to the passages in ancient 
writers that oppose their hypothesis, which these passages do not admit. 
Long, therefore, as the following quotation is, it so completely ex- 
emplifies the singular manner in which these advocates maintain their 
argument, that its length will be perhaps excused : — 

" Cependant on est entre dans un detail aussi considerable pour faire 
voir que les Celtes avoient anciennement une langue commune, qui se 
partagea par la suite en plusieurs dialectes. On voit meme que la 

* Preface to Northern Antiquities, p. xi. 

" On a deja vu," says Schcepflin, " que ceux qui ont donne" aux Gaulois seuls le nom de 
Celtes sont, parmi les Grecs, Herodote, Aristote, Polybe, Diodore de Sicile, Denys 
d'Halicarnasse, Strabon, Denys Periegete, Plutarque, Ptolemee, Athenee, et Etienne de 
Bysance ; parmi les Latins, Cesar, Tite-Live, Pomponius Mela, Lucain, et Pline. Les 
auteurs Grecs, qui donnent aux Gaulois et aux Germains le nom commun de Celtes, sont 
Appien, Pausanias, Dion Cassius, et si l'on veut, Arrien, quoiqu'il soit incertain quelle 
est son opinion sur cette matiere ; on ne trouve aucun auteur Latin pour ce sentiment. 
Les auteurs qui sont du premier sentiment, n'ont-ils pas plus d'autorite que ceux qui ont 
adopte le second, et ne meritent-ils pas qu'on les prefere aux autres? lis n'ont point 
certainement manque de talens, et n'ont pas neglige les moyens de connoitre la verite. La 
plupart ont meme vecu dans le temps ou la langue Celtique etoit encore en usage, dans le 
temps ou la nation se donnoit k elle meme, et dans sa prop-e langue, le nom de Celtes, dans 
le temps enfin, ou Ton pouvoit porter un jugement plus assure sur la signification de ce 
nom." — Schcepjlin, Vindicice Celtics, § 53., in the French translation annexed to the first 
volume of Pel. Histoire des Celtes. 

f This one of the several passages which occur in Strabo on this point will, perhaps, be 
sufficient to explain his opinion on this subject: — Ei yap S») (IBHPES) cruvcto-ntgeiv e§ov\ovro 
«XX>)Xoij, ovre K-otp^Yj^ovioig (nrrip^sv uv KUTa.<XTpefya.<jftui E7rs\8ov<ri ryv TtXeivrriv ocvtwv ex %eptov<rict;' 
xa» en Trporepov Topioij, eiT« KEATOI2, ol vvv KeXTt^pej x«» Byjpovej kuXovvtui. — Strabo, 
p. 158. 



70 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 

langue Allemande descend de l'ancienne langue des Celtes, et conserve 
la plupart de ses racines. Cette opinion peut, a la verite, etre com- 
battue ; mais les objections se dissiperont d'elles memes, pourvu que 
Ton fasse attention aux preuves deja rapportees. * 

" I. Jules Cesar, qui avoit passe pres de dix ans dans les Gaules, 
assure, dira-t'on, formellement que les trois nations, entre lesquelles 
les Gaules etoient partagees de son temps, scavoir, les Beiges, les 
Celtes, et les Aquitains, avoient une langue, des coutumes, et des loix 
dijferentes. 

" II. Strabon assure la raeme chose, au moins par rapport aux 
Aquitains. lis different, dit-il, des autres peuples des Gaules, non 
seulement par rapport a la langue, mais aussi a Vegard de la phy- 
sionomie ; Us tiennent beaucoup plus des Iberes que des Gaulois. Le 
temoignage de Strabon et de Jules Cesar suffit pour prouver que les 
peuples des Gaules n'avoient pas la meme langue. 

" III. II n'est pas moins certain, dira-t'on encore, que la langue de 
Gaule difforoit aussi de celle des Germains. Jules Cesar romarque 
qu' Arioviste, prince Germain, ayant fait un long stjour dans les Gaules, 
parlait passablement la langue du pays, f Une semblable remarque 
seroit ridicule, et ne pourroit etre pardonnee a un auteur aussi grave que 
Jules Cesar, si la langue des Gaulois et celle des Germains eussent ete 
parfaitement les memes. 

" IV. L'autorite de Jules Cesar se confirme par celle de Suetone 

* What these proofs are, if by proofs be meant the testimony of ancient writers or 
arguments founded on such testimony, it is impossible to discover in any part of the work 
preceding this quotation. 

f The words of Caesar are, " Commodissimum visum est, C. Valerium Procillum, C. 
Valerii Caburi filium, summa virtute et humanitate adolescentem, et propter fidem et 
propter linguae Gallicae scientiam, qua multa jam Ariovistus, longinqua consuetudine, 
utebatur." — De Bello Gallico, lib.i. c. 47. 

In Oudendorp's edition I find this note on this passage : — " Observandum etiam est 
frustra esse Fe. Holomannum aliosque, qui ex hoc loco colligunt, linguam Germanicam a 
Gallica prorsus fuisse diversam, cum ejusdem tantum linguae erant dialecti ut multis probavit 
Ph. Cluverius Germ. i. c. 5. Et sane discrepans pronunciatio, verba nova paullatim 

introducta, multusque inter suos linguae Germanicse usus, possent facere, ut complures 
anni transirent, priusquam Gallica commode usus fuerit Ariovistus. — Davis." 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 



71 



et de Tacite. Le premier dit que Caligula, revenant de F expedition 
qu'il avoit entreprise contre les Germains, se decerna a lui meme 
les honneurs d'un triomphe aussi vain que ses victoires et ses 
conquetes etoient imaginaires. Comme il n'emmenoit avec lui qu'un 
tres-petit nombre de prisonniers et de transfuges Germains, il prit le 
parti de choisir dans les Gaules tout ce qui s'y trouva de gens d'une 
taille gigantesque. II les obligea de laisser croitre et de rougir leur 
cheveux, d'apprendre le Germain, et d'adopter des noms barbares, 
dans la vue de les faire passer pour des Germains. 

" V. Enfin, objectera-t'on, Tacite pretend que les Osces et les 
Gothins, quoiqu'ils fussent etablis en Germanie, n'etoient pas ce- 
pendant des peuples Germains. Cet historien le prouve, en 
observant que les premiers se servoient de la langue Gauloise, et les 
seconds de celle de la Panonie. II remarque, dans le meme endroit, 
que les Marsignes et les Bures, voisins des Osces et des Gothins, 
etoient reconnus pour Sueves, tant a la langue, qu'a leur maniere de 
s'habiller. * C'est done une preuve que les peuples meme de la 
Germanie n'avoient pas la meme langue. 

" Ces objections paroissent d'abord specieuses et eblouissantes ; 
mais elles portent toutes a faux. Quoique tous les peuples Celtes 
eussent originairement la meme langue, on ne S9auroit pretendre qu'ils 
s'entendissent tous. Les langues vivantes sont sujettes a se perfec- 

tionner, et a se corrompre Seroit-il done surprenant que dans le 

cours d'un grand nombre de siecles la langue de Celtes se fut partagee 
en plusieurs dialectes ? Que ces dialectes eussent tellement varie par 
la suite du temps, que les peuples Celtes ne s'entendissent plus, pour 
peu qu'ils fussent eloignes les uns des autres."f 

It hence appears, from the admissions of the advocates themselves 
of the Celtic hypothesis, that the people immediately conterminous to 

# The words of Tacitus are, " Nee minus valent retro Marsigni, Gothini, Osi, Burii > 
terga Marcomannorum Quadorumque claudunt. E quibus Marsigni et Burii sermone 
cultuque Suevos referunt. Gothinos Gallica, Osos Pannonica lingua coarguit non esse 
Germanos ; et quod tributa patiuntur." — Tacit. Get: c. 43. 

f Pelloutier, Histoire des Celtes, p. 106', et seq. 



72 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 

the Celts, at the time when they became distinctly known to history, 
differed from them in many respects, and also in dialect at least, if not 
in language. It is further admitted, that the dialects alleged to be 
derived from Celtic had become, in the course of time and long 
separation, so dissimilar that their affinity with the parent tongue 
could be discovered only by etymological research. For Pelloutier 
remarks : — " Jules Cesar parle en homme de guerre. II dit que les 
Aquitains, les Beiges, les Celtes, et les Germains, ont des langues 
differentes. L'on conviendra sans peine que ces peuples ne s'en- 
tendoient pas les uns les autres sans interpretes ; mais Jules Cesar n'a 
pas examine en homme de lettres, s'il n'y avoit pas entre ces quatre 
langues differentes quelque affinite, quelque ressemblance, qui put 
faire juger qu'elles descendoient originairement d'une langue com- 
mune." * 

The question, therefore, is thus submitted to the test of language, 
and no criterion is better adapted for its decision ; if the examination 
of the Celtic words adduced as identical with those of any other 
language be conducted on clear and rational principles. But many 
pages of the works of Bullet, Cour de Gebelin, and other writers, are 
occupied in showing that any one letter of the alphabet may be 
changed for another; and that, in fact, the component letters of a 
word are of no importance : for, if KV7reXXov be not Celtic, cuib 
certainly is ; and it can be easily conceived that the former is merely 
a corruption of the latter, -f This singular process of converting a 

* Histoire des Celtes, vol. i. p. 108. 

Pelloutier forgets that Caesar was also a man of letters, and even an etymologist in his 
own language. Nothing, therefore, seems more probable than that, during the nine years he 
resided in Gaul, he would amuse his leisure hours in making accurate enquiries into the lan- 
guages, manners, and religions of Gaul and Germany. 

f In case this singular etymology should appear fictitious, I must refer to Townsend's 
Character of Moses, vol. ii. p. 227. 

It is, at the same time, remarkable, that almost all the Celtic etymologies given by Cour 
de Gebelin proceed on the same supposition, that a word in another language of two or 
more syllables is merely a corruption of some Celtic monosyllabic word ; but experience 
demonstrates, beyond the power of contradiction, that in all languages there ever has been, 
and ever will be, a tendency to abbreviation and contraction. To derive, therefore, a poly- 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. ^o 

Celtic word into Greek, Latin, Teutonic, or any other language the 
etymologist pleases, is explained at length by Mr. Townsend, from 

whose work I extract the following very convenient rules : 

" Bh, mh, ch, gh, and ih have frequently the same sound ; but what 
is more remarkable is that hy, y, i, ibh, nay, even camha, cogha, and 
cocadh, are pronounced like o, so that coghan becomes owen, and camha- 
nia becomes onia. * D after n doubles it, and therefore find is read finn. 
" G and c are both hard. These are commutable, as are b and f, t 
and d, m and n. Hence nemethce is pronounced momce. Ch, dh, and 
g/i, at the end of words, readily change for each other. 

" This operation of the aspirate naturally accounts for the licentious 
changes we observe in words, and the substitution of one consonant 

for another, with which it has no organic affinity A sufficient 

acquaintance with this licentious practice, will enable us to trace the 
affinity of words, which apparently have no connection. For instance, 
between o<jco; and cedes we can see no resemblance, nor shall we be 
able to discover their descent from one common ancestor, unless we 
view them as related to the Gaelic. Here, in the family of omog, we 
find oighthiarna and oighre, and oighedh. On the other hand, aoidheach, 
aoidhidhe, oidhre, and oidhe, a guest, with aoidheachd and aidheacht, 
lodging, are allied to cedes. But, from what I have stated, it is clear, 
that, in pronunciation, not the least difference exists between oighidh 
and aoidhidhe, which evidently refer the former to ww?, and the latter 
to cedes"\ How far these rules given by Mr, Townsend apply to the 



syllabic from a monosyllabic word, unless it is clearly proved to be the root, is contrary to 
this obvious and indisputable principle, which alone is sufficient to show the futility of all 
Celtic etymologies : but, even in ascertaining the supposed root, none of the component 
letters of the word identified with Celtic ought to be rejected ; nor ought, therefore, the 
Latin candidus to be derived from the Celtic can. 

* I have not been able to ascertain whether these quiescent letters ought to be taken into 
consideration in etymological researches or not ; for I find that Celtic etymologists either 
-make use of them or reject them, just as it suits their convenience. 

f Character of Moses, vol. ii. p. 180, 181. 

But Mr. Townsend had just before said, " Dh and gh are either quiescent or sound like 



74 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 

pronunciation of Celtic I know not, but it is self evident that, if 
applied to other languages, no ingenuity is required for making 
quidlibet ex quolibet. 

It is at the same time very remarkable that, when Celtic is not 
concerned, Celtic etymologists are themselves perfectly aware of the 
impropriety of subjecting the words of the different languages com- 
pared together to etymological tortures, in order to extort an appear- 
ance of identity which does not exist ; for Cour de Gebelin very justly 
observes : — " Au renouvellement des sciences en Europe, on s'appliqua 
avec une ardeur inconcevable a l'etude des langues savantes : on 
devora les livres Latins, Grecs, Arabes, Hebreux, &c, en meme terns 
qu'on ne negligeoit rien pour remonter a l'origine de ces langues. A 
cet egard il n'y eut en quelque sorte qu'une opinion ; on vit toutes les 
langues dans 1'Heforeu ; chaque mot, Grec, Latin, &c, dut rassembler, 
bon gre malgre, a un mot Hebreu : on Fallongeoit, on le raccourcissoit, 
on le changeoit jusqu'a ce que le rapport flit parfait : jamais Phalaris 
[Procruste] ne disloqua mieux les malheureux etrangers qui tomboient 
entre ses mains, pour les assortir a la longueur de son lit. II parut 
done dans les XVI e et XVII e siecles une multitude d'ouvrages ou 
Ton se proposoit de prouver que la langue Hebraique est la 
premiere de toutes les autres, la langue-mere, dont toutes sont 
descendues ; ouvrages en general sans gout, sans principes, sans 
critique, sans philosophie ; malheureux essais ou Ferudition est 
presque toujours en pure perte, ou elle ne sert qu'a egarer." * But it 



y in you, and thus dhean becomes yan ; ghabh is sounded yabh In terminations, dh and 

gh are either quiescent or become oo, as dheanadh is yanoo and laogh is loo" Consequently, 
if quiescent letters are to be rejected, aighidh does not sound like oixo; nor aoidhidhe like 
cedes: but, it seems, these letters may be pronounced or not, just as best suits the etymology 
which is to be demonstrated. 

* Monde Primitif, vol. vi. p. xxiv. 

Notwithstanding their violence, the following remarks of Pinkerton on Celtic etymologists 
are equally just; at the end he gives specimens of Celtic etymology from that insane work, 
the " Memoires de la Langue Celtique, par M. Bullet," from which it appears, that " a 
man must be a lunatic who founds any thing upon a language so loose as to take any 
impression. Such are Northampton (North Hampton): from nor, the mouth of a river; tan, 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 



15 



must be obvious that, if Celtic be the parent tongue from which the 
languages of Europe are derived, such means cannot be requisite for 
evincing their affinity : for, in the languages derived from the Latin, 
or in the various Teutonic dialects, the common origin of which is 
much more ancient, it is perfectly unnecessary to have recourse to 
interchanging, adding, or rejecting, at pleasure, every letter of the 
alphabet, in order to show their relation to each other, and their 
derivation from one parent tongue. Even in languages, the direct 
affinity of which is rendered questionable by distance of time and 
place, it will be seen, by a reference to Table I. Part II. of this 
work, that such arbitrary changes are not required for establishing 
the identity of the words used by different people, however anciently 
or widely separated from each other ; for it will be there observed 
that no further permutations of letters occur, than in substituting one 
vowel for another, or the hard for the soft sound of a consonant ; that 
the syllables of each word remain untouched, and that no letters 
are added or rejected except occasionally the final vowel or syl- 
lable of the Sanscrit term ; and yet 900 Sanscrit words are incon- 
trovertibly identified, by mere juxta-position, with a variety of words, 
all of different meanings, occurring in five distinct languages. When, 
therefore, the Celtic etymologist produces an equal number of Celtic 
words identical with Greek, Latin, and Teutonic terms, the truth of his 



a river ; ton, habitation. Northill (North Hill) : from nor, river ; and tyne, habitation. 
Ringwood : from ren, a division ; ew, a river ; and bed, a forest. Uxbridge (Ouse Bridge) : 

from uc, river ; and brig, division. Risum teneatis ? The few words peculiarly Celtic, 

and of which a glossary, by a person of complete skill in the Gothic, would be highly 
valuable, have so many significations, that to found etymology on them is worse than mad- 
ness. In the Irish, one word has often ten, twenty, or thirty meanings : gal implies a 
stranger, a native, milk, a warrior, white, a pledge, a conqueror, the belly of a trout, a wager, 
&c This must be the case in all savage tongues ; but the Celtic, I will venture to say, is 
of all savage languages the most confused, as the Celts are of all savages the most deficient 
in understanding. Wisdom and ingenuity may be traced among the Samoieds, Laplanders, 
Negroes, &c, but, among the Celts, none of native growth. All etymology of names is folly, 
but Celtic etymology is sheer frenzy. Enough of Celtic etymology ! let us leave it to can- 
didates for bedlam and go on." — Dissertation on the Scythians or Goths, p. 101. 

L 2 



76 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 

hypothesis will be immediately admitted; but, as mere comparison of 
the words supposed to be identical, or permutations in their letters 
and syllables on clear and indisputable principles, are the only criteria 
by which the correctness of etymologies can be determined; it must 
necessarily follow that, as the genuineness of Celtic etymologies cannot 
support these simple tests, they must be considered as arbitrary, 
fanciful, and unfounded. 

To admit, also, this hypothesis, it must likewise be admitted that 
conquest and the introduction of a new religion did not produce the 
same changes in the Celtic tongue, which they have occasioned in every 
other language which has been subjected to their influence.* The 
dialects of Europe derived from Latin abound in Teutonic words, the 
Spanish language in Arabic, the modern Greek in Turkish, and the 
Persian in Arabic ; on what principle, therefore, of reasoning or common 
sense can it be supposed that Celtic was alone exempted from similar 
effects, when it was submitted to the operation of the very same causes ? 
It cannot, also, be denied that the Celts were a rude people, and that 
the Romans, and even the Anglo-Saxons and Normans, surpassed them 
in civilisation ; and, consequently, that the language of the conquerors 
must have been much more copious than that of the conquered people. 
Pinkerton, therefore, may be excused for having affirmed that of all 

* The Celts have not yet, I believe, answered these questions of Lanzi : — "II Latino, or 
piii or meno schietto usato in Europa, oltre il 1200, al civile commercio e alia propagazione 
del S. Vangelo, in ogni alpe, in ogni capanna, in ogni angolo ha dovuto lasciar vestigj di se. 
Che mi si schierino que' tanti vocaboli Celti affini al Latino ; io gli posso credere nati nel 
Lazio, e guasti fra Celti. So che questi 35 secoli addietro dovean essere molto scarsi di 
termini. Fuoco potea dirsi fra loro ti o ulvu ; se nel Celtico si trova engil, come mi si prova 
che da esso derivi ignis, piuttosto ch' esso sia guasto da ignis? Che mi si opponga non esser 
Greci alquanti nomi degli Dei, siccome Saturno, Vulcano, Mercurio ; e che V. ultimo, per 
esempio, dee venire da merchvvr (mercator) ed essersi recato da' Celti. Si provi ancor qui 
in primo luogho che merchvvr sia anteriore a mercator ,- mi si dica poi perche i Celti non 
recassero o non propagassero il nome di Mercurio fra gli Umbri? mi si spieghi in oltre 
perche nemmen gli Etruschi lor posteri lo appellino se non Thurms, ch' e quanto to$ 'Hp^c ? 
E quando bene accordassi che qualche voce non si potesse ascrivere se non a' Celti, come 
dimosti'are ch' ella non siasi introdotta per via di commercio ? Vi commerciarono gli 
Etruschi in tempi antichissimi, e questi molto influirono nella Latinita, come osservai nella 
Parte I." — Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. ii. p. 14. 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. ^ 

people the Celts are most deficient in understanding, when Celtic 
writers gravely assert that y^utptiv is derived from grafaim, scribere 
from scriobham, discere from dysgu, litera from llythyr, and liber from 
leabhar ; and who contend that the Latin numerals were derived 
from the Irish aon, da, tri, ceithair, coig, seisear, seached, ocht, naoi, 
deic. But, if the Celts in Britain and Ireland are indebted to strangers 
for words to express writing, and even for their numerals, as the mere 
inspection of such etymologies sufficiently proves, it cannot for a 
moment be supposed that either Greeks, Romans, or Germans could 
have received, from so rude a people, any terms indicative of the 
objects peculiar to a much higher state of civilisation than they had 
attained. 

With respect to this point, O'Brien, in the Preface to his Irish Dic- 
tionary, very correctly obseives that " the sure method of discerning 
those Celtic words resembling the Latin (or any other language) in any 
European dialect of the Celtic nations, is by considering, in the first 
place, if they are expressive either of such ideas or such objects of the 
senses as no language can want words for from the beginning; because 
no society of people, nay, none of its particular members enjoying all the 
senses, could at any time or in any country be strangers to such objects 
or ideas, and, consequently, none destitute of words to distinguish 
them : and, secondly, to consider if such words be the only appel- 
latives of their respective objects or ideas used in the language, either in 
common practice or in old writings, for signifying the things they are 
appropriated to. All words in any of the Celtic dialects, which can 
stand the test of these two qualities, may, with full assurance, be re- 
garded as mere Celtic (though probably changed somewhat from their 
primitive form and pronunciation), and not derived from the Latin, 
whatever resemblance or affinity they may bear with words of the same 
signification in the language." But, when he proceeds to exemplify 
these rules, it becomes impossible to admit the etymologies which he 
adduces ; because all unimproved languages are deficient in names for 
many natural objects, and in terms expressive of the operations of the 



78 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 

mind ; and, consequently, their existence in a language is no proof of 
their originality, but is, on the contrary, if the language were spoken 
by an uncivilised people, a strong presumption of their foreign deriv- 
ation. It is, therefore, inconsistent with this clear and obvious prin- 
ciple to consider the following Latin and Greek words as derivatives from 
the Irish, when the direct contrary appears so much more probable : — 
Irish, Dia, Latin, Deus ; I. anam, L. anima ; I. intleacht, L. intellectus ; 
I. meamhoir, L. memoria ; I. intin, L. intentio ; I. sprid, L. spiritus ; I.feall, 
L. fallacia ; I. coh't, L. cortex ; I. stan, L. stannum ; I. or, L. aurum ; I. 
iarun, \^.jerrum; I. crock, L. crocus; I. £ir, L. terra; I. cor cur, L,. pur- 
pura ; I.grara, L. granum ; I. machiul, L. macula; I. mo/, L. mola ; I. ro£/«, 
L. rota ; I. cahmeal, L. candela. Or, Irish, aer, Greek, «^ ; I. acbheis, 
G. a£u<ro-o£ ; I. airget, G. a,^yv^oq ; I. cnaib, G. jcawa£<? ; I. ceatf, G. 
sKuroi-y I. colon, G. koXuvy, ; I. Jileadh, G. <ptXo<ro<pos ; I. Jion, G. cw?i 
I. neabhul, G. n$a.Xvi ; I. pz'aw, G. tto^ ; I. s/jeir, G. <r<p«^os ; I. 

tiarna, G. TVgotvvcs ; I. fozV, G. QeXvjpx, ; I. agalla, G. ayysXXu ; 

I. am, G. Ritrf. I add from Mr. Townsend's work a few identifi- 
cations of Celtic and English words, which are equally objectionable : — 
Gaelic, bolsgairam, English, oo^7; G. beathael, E. 6eos7; G. copehaille, 
E. cop ; G. teidmh, E. deaf/* ; G. dimhnighm, E. dm?z ; G. dorws-, E. door; 
G. smigein, E. cAm ; G. taos, E. dowg/* ; G. bacalta, E. oo&e ; G. blagair, 
E. blast ; G. easlan, E. oz7; G. buachail, E. oo#. 

But, in order that the reader may observe what the result of the 
strict application of the principles proposed by O'Brien would be, I 
subjoin the following comparative list of words, all of which are 
likely to be found in a rude tongue, from which the total dissimi- 
larity of the Celtic with other languages will be rendered perfectly 
apparent.* 

* It may, perhaps, be proper to observe that, in the Arabic column of this table, the 
words are written according to the pronunciation of the letters which prevails in Persia and 
India ; and that it is the third person singular of the preterite of verbs, and not the 
infinitive, which is given. 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 



79 



Greek. 


Latin. 


Welsh. 


Irish. 


German. 


Arabic. 


Sanscrit. 


Persian. 


ayaQoc 


bonus 


da 


da 


gut 


taib 


shubha 


nik 


i 


sanguis 


gward 


cru 


blut 


dam 


raktum 


khun 


avtavSa. 


spina 


eirinbarth 


dealg 


dorn 


shuk 


kantaka 


khar 


axovstv 


audire 


clywed 


eualaim 


hofen 


samaa 


shrotum 


shaniden 


aXfjBti^ 


verus 


cywir 


dearbh 


wahr 


sahih 


satya 


rast 


avE//.o$ 


ventus 


chwyth 


deaith 


wind 


rih 


wata 


bad 


avBoi; 


flos 


blodewyn 


bla'th 


blume 


zahir 


pushpum 


gul 


av8puTro<; 


homo 


dyn 


duine 


mann 


rajul 


nara 


mard 


apyvpo<; 


argentum 


arian 


airgiod 


silber 


fizzah 


rajatam 


slm 


ap-ro; 


panis 


bar a 


aran 


brot 


khubz 


annam 


nan 


acTTTI? 


scutum 


tarian 


eirr 


schild 


tirs 


charmam 


sipar 


CMTT'/jp 


Stella 


seren 


reannan 


stern 


kaukab 


tara 


sitara 


avrot; 


ille 


ef 


e 


cr 


hu 


sa 





SaaiXtvi; 


rex 


llywydd 


mal 


konig 


malik 


raja 


shah 


ya.Xa.yiTa, 


lac 


laith 


blith 


milch 


laban 


dugdam 


shir 


ytpuv 


senex 


coth 


criona 


alt 


shekh 


jaran 


pir 


yka<T<ra, 


lingua 


tafod 


eochai 


zunge 


lisan 


jihwa 


ziban 


yvvi\ 


mulier 


guraig 


bean 


weib 


nisa 


stri 


zan 


'hast.pvziv 


plorare 


cwynfan 


guilim 


weinen 


baka 


ruditum 


giristen 


Sa/xaXi? 


vacca 


myswynog 


eare 


kuh 


bakr 


go 


madeh-gav 


SiSovai 


dare 


rhoddi 


tabhraim 


geben 


ata 


datum 


daden 


"bzvbpov 


arbor 


coedd 


gnia 


baum 


shajar 


wraksha 


dirakht 


£ y X o? 


hasta 


gwayu 


carr 


spiess 


harb 


shanku 


sinan 


eiSejv 


videre 


gweled 


cim 


sehen 


basara 


drishtum 


diden 


EITTUV 


dicere 


dywidydd 


abraim 


sprechen 


kala 


uktum 


guften 


ijATt'K-riBtlV 


implere 


llenwi 


carcaim 


fullen 


taria 


puritum 


pur-karden 


ep%e<r9ai 


venire 


dyfad 


dighim 


kommen 


atu 


etum 


amaden 


epui; 


amor 


hoffdar 


dila 


liebe 


ishk 


kama 


yari 


vfkioi; 


sol 


haul 


grioth 


sonne 


shams 


suria 


aftab 


$juh$ 


nos 


nini 


sinn 


wir 


nahn 


waium 


ma 


6a.va.TOs 


mors 


angen 


andhacht 


tod 


maut 


mritiu 


mirg 


6tp/j.oq 


calidus 


cynnes 


te 


warm 


harr 


gharma 


garm 


6pt 


crinis 


guale 


gruag 


haar 


shaar 


kesha 


mu 


%vya,Tt\p 


filia 


merch 


dear 


dochter 


bint 


duhitr 


dochter 


itvai 


ire 


myned 


teadhaim 


gehen 


masha 


gantum 


raften 


hi 


sagitta 


hobel 


godas 


pfeil 


nabal 


bana 


tir 


licit 0$ 


equus 


gorwydd 


each 


pferd 


faras 


aswa 


asp 


irrravai 


stare 


sefy 


seasaim 


stehen 


kama 


statum 


istaden 


via-Bevhetv 


dormire 


cysgu 


faoidhim 


schlafen 


rakada 


swapitum 


khabiden 


Y.a.H.o<; 


malus 


dwrg 


eale 


boss 


sham- 


dushta 


bad 


v.a.p'itot; 


fructus 


enwd 


bliocht 


frucht 


samar 


phullam 


miwah 


•asvoi; 


vacuus 


guag 


falambh 


leeren 


khali 


shunya 


tahi 


Y.t<paXtj 


caput 


penn 


ceann 


haupt 


ras 


shirasa 


sar 


vXivfi 


lectus 


gwely 


cosair 


belt 


mihad 


parienka 


palang 


Y.TUVEIV 


necare 


Had 


facthad 


todten 


katala 


wadhitum 


kushiden 


Y.VUV 


canis 


ci 


cu 


hund 


kalb 


shuna 


sag 


\a[A@a.v£iv 


accipere 


cymmeryd 


ed 


nehmen 


akhaza 


lipsitum 


sitaden 


Xvnot; 


lupus 


blaidd 


criun 


wolf 


zaib 


wrika 


gurk 


paxpos 


longus 


hir 


fad 


long 


taul 


dirgha 


diraz 


peyai; 


magnus 


mawr 


mor 


gross 


kabir 


mulia 


buzurg 


t*v$ 


mus 


llygoden 


lueh 


maus 


far 


musha 


mush 


vavi; 


navis 


Hong 


eathar 


schiff 


safinah 


nan 


kashti 


vrjiroi; 


insula 


ynys 


1 


eiland 


jazirah 


dwipa 


anju 



80 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 



Greek. 


Latin. 


Welsh. 


Irish. 


German. 


Arabic. 


Sanscrit. 


Persian. 


£»?>»* 


ensis 


cleddyf 


gen 


schwert 


seif 


asi 


tigh 


0S0? 


via 


fford 


raon 


weg 


sabil 


marga 


rah 


ohovi; 


dens 


ysgitha 


fecc 


zahn 


sinn 


dantam 


dan dan 


obvvvj 


dolor 


gofid 


diie 


schmerz 


asaf 


pira 


dard 


OtKOq 


domus 


ty 


lios 


hans 


beit 


ghriham 


khanah 


oXfio? 


dives 


berthog 


saidhbher 


reich 


ghini 


shriman 


tawangir 


oXiyo? 


parvus 


coeg 


diochuid 


klein 


saghir 


laghu 


khord 


OfjLfxa. 


oculus 


llygad 


deare 


ange 


ain 


netram 


chashm 


»b>s 


acutus 


clym 


sgathmhar 


sch arf 


hadd 


tikshana 


tiz 


opvi9o$ 


avis 


edn 


en 


vogel 


tair 


pakshi 


parandah 


opo; 


mons 


mynydd 


sliabh 


berg 


jabal 


parwat 


koh 


opvrttiv 


fodere 


palu 


ceabhaim 


graben 


hafara 


khanitum 


kanden 


OtTTtOV 


os, ossis 


asgwrn 


tee 


bein 


izm 


asti 


estukhwan 


ova$ 


auris 


clust 


dud 


ohr 


izn 


karna 


gush 


ovpa 


cauda 


cynfFen 


easal 


schwanz 


zanab 


pucha 


dum 


maic, 


puer 


macewy 


maccaomh 


knabe 


sabi 


kumara 


barna 


itax v S 


pinguis 


bgas 


reamhar 


fett 


semin 


pina 


farbeh 


1 ite\ayo<; 


mare 


llyr 


li 


see 


babr 


samudra 


daria 


7T£V>JT5J? 


pauper 


bychodog 


daidhblier 


arm 


fakir 


daridra 


gada 


werea-Qai 


volare 


hedeg 


eitlim 


fliegen 


tara 


urritum 


pariden 


ireTp-q 


Japis 


carreg 


onn 


stein 


hijar 


pashana 


sang 


TtivcaOai 


bibere 


yfed 


daif 


trinken 


sharaba 


pitum 


nushiden 


ttoXh; 


urbs 


caer 


cathgir 


stadt 


madinah 


nagaram 


shahar 


T:o\if/.o<; 


bellum 


rhyfil 


duchon 


krieg 


harb 


yuddh 


Jung 


iroXvi; 


multus 


Uawer 


dirini 


viele 


khaili 


bahula 


firawan 


irov$ 


pes 


troed 


cos 


fuss 


rijah 


pada 


pa 


•Kpattuv 


facere 


peri 


deanam 


machen 


faala 


kartum 


karden 


•tivp 


ignis 


tan 


tin 


feuer 


nair 


agni 


atish 


pr,v 


nasus 


trwyn 


commor 


nase 


anf 


nasa 


bini 


craXrjvrj 


luna 


lloer 


easconn 


mond 


kamar 


chandra 


mah 


(T&ripot; 


ferrum 


arf 


eabradh 


eisen 


hadid 


loh 


ah an 


crrpaTOi; 


exercitus 


lin 


creach 


heer 


jaish 


sena 


lashkar 


<70!f/.a 


corpus 


corpt 


eacht 


leib 


jism 


deha 


badan 


Taxvs 


celer 


buan 


daith 


schnell 


sari 


kshipra 


zud 


v$up 


aqua 


dwr 


bior 


wasser 


ma 


udaka 


ab 


VETOf 


pluvia 


glaw 


ainbheach 


regen 


ghais 


warsha 


baran 


vloi; 


filius 


mab 


mac 


sohn 


ibn 


putra 


pisar 


i/xeti; 


vos 


chwi 


sibh 


cuch 


intum 


yuyam 


shuma 


«« 


sus 


mochyn 


ceis 


saw 


khinzir 


shukara 


khuk 


tpav\o; 


vilis 


gwaeh 


lair 


schlecht 


haker 


nicha 


wakas 


tptptiv 


ferre 


dwyn 


malcam 


fiihren 


hamala 


bharitum 


burden 


fQaip 


pediculus 


truedyn 


sarog 


laus 


kaml 


yuka 


sipas 


(fkeytiv 


urere 


llasgi 


lasaim 


brennen 


sakara 


ushtum 


suliten 


<po€eiv 


tiraere 


ofni 


eaglaim 


furchten 


harasa 


trasitum 


tarsiden 


ppovptov 


castellum 


trefan 


rath 


schloss 


kila 


durga 


dizh 


%"?■ 


manus 


hlaw 


lamh 


hand 


yad 


hasta 


dast 


X'6» 


nix 


eiry 


laogh 


schnee 


sulj 


hima 


barf 



In the preceding 100 Celtic words, all primitives and likely to occur 
in the most unimproved tongues, not one bears the remotest resem- 
blance to the terms with which they are compared in six different 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. gj 

languages. When, therefore, Celtic etymologists find it impossible to 
effect even the appearance of an identification of Celtic words with 
those of other languages, except by arbitrary changes which are altoge- 
ther inadmissible ; and when the words which are unquestionably Celtic 
have not the slightest correspondence with those of any other tongue ; 
it may be justly concluded that not a single language of Europe or 
Asia has been derived from the Celtic, or has even the least affinity 
with it. It must also necessarily follow, that the Latin and Teutonic 
words*, with which the remains of the Celtic at present abound, are 
not original, but derived from the people by whom the Celts were con- 
quered, and from whom they received a new religion. 

It is, however, possible that the Celts, if they once occupied the 
whole of Europe, may have gradually receded, as they were attacked 
by a perfectly distinct race of men, and may have left no part of their 
people in the countries which they were thus compelled to forsake. 
Hence, it may be argued, no Celtic words could pass into the language 
of the conquerors, and their non-existence in it, consequently, though 
it may disprove the affinity of the two languages, will not prove that 
these countries were never possessed by the Celts. The maintainers, 
therefore, of this hypothesis are prepared to show that almost every 
name of man, town, mountain, or river , which occurs in ancient authors, 
and even of many places at the present day, are pure Celtic, as is de- 
monstrated by their being easily explained by the words of this copious 
and expressive language. Bullet has written a folio volume on this 
subject, but Pinkerton was so uncourteous as to call it an insane work, 
and to declare that all etymology of names is folly, but Celtic etymo- 
logy is sheer frenzy. 

Harsh as this censure may appear, its justness cannot be disputed : for 
the names contained in ancient authors have been principally preserved 

* As far as I have observed, there seems, with a few solitary exceptions only, to be no 
Greek words in Celtic, except such as are cognate with the Latin ; and it is, therefore, 
most probable that they were derived intermediately through this language, and not directly 
from Greek. FpctQeiv is the only Greek word, not cognate with the Latin, which I have 
remarked, but there may be others. 

M 



82 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 

by Greek writers, and their distaste for barbarous names and fondness 
of euphony cannot be denied ; for even Bryant, whose whole system 
is founded on similar etymologies, observes, — " This was the standard 
[the Greek language] to which every thing was brought ; and, if they 
met with any names that would not abide the trial, they deemed them 
barbarous, and entirely omitted them. Strabo fairly confesses that this 

was his way of proceeding ; Ov Xeyu h rtov eOvcov t« ovcfxxja ra ttuXxix, 
Sta. tvjv ctSorixv recti uy.x uro7ftxv ri\q eK$opxg avruv. The ancient historian 
Cephalaon says the same ; Epoi $s v\ y^xtyvi ti re^irvov, y\ ti x a P l£V ^XAei/ 
efceiv ovof/.ctK'hvioYiv ctvev 7r^x^euiv GapSapwy (puvoevn rvpavvovg, SeiXov; noa fjtxXoatag 

€ap€apou?. On this account Josephus was afraid to mention the names 
of the persons who composed the family of his great ancestor, Jacob, 
lest they should appear uncouth to the nice ears of his readers ; Ta pev 

ow ovofjLctrct 3rjXu<rxi tcvtuv ova eSoxif/.x^oVf xxt uxXhttu Sia, tv\v PvrxoXixv aUTwv."* 

The Latin writers were less licentious in this respect ; but, had both 
they and Greek authors been anxious to preserve the correct pro- 
nunciation of proper names, it would have been impossible for them to 
have effected this purpose : because no two alphabets, particularly 
those of Europe and Asia, contain precisely the same sounds ; and, 
consequently, had a writer been capable of conquering the almost 
insuperable difficulty of accurately ascertaining the proper pronun- 
ciation of foreign words, he could not have expressed it in the characters 
of his own alphabet. In modern times it is only necessary to take 
up the work of even a well informed traveller, in order to be con- 
vinced of the absolute impossibility of correctly preserving the exact 
sound of foreign proper names. Men and places, also, often receive 
names from strangers which are perfectly unknown to the language of 
the inhabitants ; and thus any etymology founded upon them proceeds 
on an assumption totally erroneous, f 

* Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology, 8vo ed. vol. vi. p. 39. 

I am aware that Bryant made this complaint, because he could not convert the unfor- 
tunate names preserved by Greek writers into good Hebrew ; but it will be found equally 
impossible to make them good Celtic. 

f If the reader wishes for examples, he may consult the works of Bochart, Bryant, and 
Faber, passim. The following instance may be sufficient : — " We find, then, that the title 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 



83 



Until, therefore, it is proved that the proper name was actually used 
by the inhabitants of the country to which it is supposed to belong, 
and that the pronunciation has been correctly preserved, or, what would 
be preferable, until the name itself is produced written in its proper 
characters, no certainty of its genuineness can possibly exist. I admit, 
at the same time, that could the word be identified without violence 
with one of any known language, it might deserve attention ; and that 
a number of such words would be a strong presumption that, in the 
country in which they had occurred, this particular language must have 
prevailed at some time or other : but, when there is no evidence what- 
ever to evince that the people, to whose speech the name is alleged to 
belong, ever occupied the country in which it is found, it must be 
obvious that, unless its identity is rendered apparent by mere compa- 
rison with its supposed etymon, the correctness of the etymology is 
much too questionable to be admitted. That the Celtic etymologies, 
however, cannot stand this simple test, is singularly exemplified, with 
respect to comparatively modern times, in the difference of opinion 
that exists between Dr. Jamieson and Mr. G. Chalmers relative to the 
origin of the Picts. For Dr. Jamieson observes, — "A writer of great 
research has, indeed, lately attempted to show that all the names of the 
Pictish kings are British. The names of the Pictish kings, he says, have 
not any meaning in the Teutonic, and they are, therefore, Celtic. They 
are not Irish, and, consequently, they are British. Here I must make 
the same observation, as before, with respect to the topography. I 
cannot pretend to give the true meaning of these names, as there is no 
branch of etymology so uncertain as this ; but, if I can give a meaning, 



Samarim, or Semiramis, did not relate to one person but to many ; and it seems par- 
ticularly to have been usurped by princes. The Cuthites settled about Cochin and 
Madura, in India ; and the great kings of Calicut were styled the Samarim even in later 
times, when these countries were visited by the Portuguese and English!" — An. Am: 
Myth. vol. iii. p. 144. 

But such a word as Samarim, or Zamorin, is unknown in the Malabar language. I may, 
however, add, that both Mr. Bryant and Mr. Faber mention that Brahma is called Pra~ 
japati, that is, the Lord Japhet ; but the word is Praja-pati, i. e. progeniei dominus, 

M 2 



84 THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 

and one which is at least as probable as the other, it must appear that 
the Teutonic, as far as names can go, has as good a claim to the royal 
line of Picts as the British."* 

" Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites : " 

but, having carefully examined the two lists, I may be permitted to 
observe that the Teutonic is just as probable as the Celtic etymology, 
and that this example fully proves that the etymology of proper names 
is mere folly, f 

As, therefore, neither history, nor language, nor even the desperate 
resource of etymology of proper names, supports in the slightest degree 
the Celtic hypothesis, it must necessarily follow that it is totally 
groundless. The Celts, consequently, however mortifying to their 
lofty pretensions it may be, must acquiesce in the justness of this 
remark of Mr. G. Chalmers : — " Yet were not the aborigines of 
Europe, who, in subsequent ages, acquired the name of Celtae, any 
where found in large assemblages. While Asia and Africa show several 

* Dissertation on the Scottish Language, prefixed to Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary, 
p. 35. 

Dr. Jamieson had before observed, " Candour requires that it should be admitted, that 
the Celtic dialects seem to excel the Gothic in expressive terms of a topographical kind. 
The Celts have, undoubtedly, discovered greater warmth of fancy, and a more natural vein 
for practical description, than the Gothic or Teutonic tribes ; their nomenclatures are, as 
it were, pictures of the countries which they inhabit; but, at the same time, their explan- 
ations must be viewed with reserve, not only because of the vivid character of their 
imagination, but on account of the extreme ductility of their language, which, from the 
great changes it admits in a state of construction, has a far more ample range than any of 
the Gothic dialects. Hence, an ingenious Celt, without the appearance of much violence, 
could derive almost any word from his mother tongue. Our author has very properly 
referred to Bullet's Dictionnaire in proof of the great variety of the Celtic tongue^ for any one 
who consults that work must see what uncertain ground he treads on, in the pursuit of Celtic 
etymons." — Ibid. p. 12. 

f It will be observed that I have not employed such etymologies in these Researches ; 
but, had I availed myself of the licentious rules laid down by Celtic etymologists, I could 
have converted, without much trouble, every proper name that I met with in ancient 
writers into very good Persian or very good Sanscrit. Whether the value of this work 
may have been diminished by this forbearance I must leave the reader to decide ; but it has 
certainly deprived me of an opportunity of showing what seems considered to be both 
ingenuity and erudition. 



THE CELTIC LANGUAGE. 85 

examples of empires vast and flourishing in the earliest times, we only 
see, among the Celts, clans disconnected from habit, and feeble from dis- 
union. At the recent period when the Romans entered Gaul, with 
whatever design of revenge or conquest, that extensive country, the 
appropriate seat of the Celtic people, was cantoned among sixty tribes, 
who were little united by policy, and still less conjoined by the accus- 
tomed habits of natural affection. Wherever we turn our inquisitive 
eyes on the wide surface of Europe, we look in vain for a Celtic 
empire, however the Celtic people may have agreed in their language, 
in their worship, and in their customs."* That the Celts were a pri- 
mitive people is sufficiently established by their language, but that 
they were the aborigines of Europe is a point which can neither be 
proved nor disproved : were it, however, admitted, the non-existence 
of genuine Celtic words in any one language of Europe, must irre- 
sistibly demonstrate that the Celts were anciently dispossesed of the 
greatest part of the country which they may have once occupied, by a 
perfectly distinct race of men. This very argument, therefore, evinces 
that the present inhabitants of Europe are not the descendants of the 
Celts, and that they did not receive from them their languages, 
manners, and religion. With regard, also, to the languages of Asia, I 
may adopt the words of Davis in the Preface to his Dictionary, after 
substituting the word nullam for manifestam: — " Ausim affirmare lin- 
guam Britannicam (Celticam), turn vocibus, turn phrasibus et orationis 
contextu, turn literarum pronunciatione, nullam cum orientalibus 
habere congruentiam et affinitatem." The Celtic, therefore, when di- 
vested of all words which have been introduced into it by conquest and 
religion, is a perfectly original language : but this originality incontro- 
vertibly proves that neither Greek, Latin, or the Teutonic dialects, 
nor Arabic, Persian, or Sanscrit, were derived from the Celtic, since 
these languages have not any affinity whatever with that tongue. 

* Chalmers's Caledonia, vol. i. p. 6. 



86 



CHAP. VII. 

THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

The remarks contained in the two preceding chapters will, perhaps, 
have evinced that it is not from the unknown Scythian or the rude 
Celtic that the most copious, the most expressive, and the most har- 
monious of languages derives its origin : but, though the beauty and 
perfection of the Greek language is universally admitted, still Mr. 
Mitford merely expresses the general opinion, when he observes that 
" the origin of the Greek nation from a mixture of the Pelasgians, 
and possibly some other barbarous hordes, with colonies from Phe 
nicia and Egypt, seems not doubtful."* If, however, the cause as- 
signed be inadequate to produce the alleged effect, its existence may be 
reasonably questioned. As, therefore, experience proves that a bar- 
barous people must speak a barbarous tongue, and as no attempts are 
made to explain the manner in which the rude speech of a mixed 
people, consisting of Pelasgians, barbarian aborigines, Phenicians, and 
Egyptians, was refined into that homogeneous and polished language 
by which the poems of Homer are distinguished, it may be justly con- 
cluded that the real descent of the Greeks is a point which still remains 
undetermined. Its investigation, also, is impeded by the deference 
which is no doubt due to the opinions of ancient writers ; but it must 
be recollected that these authors themselves avow that the subject is 
involved in the greatest obscurity, and that the memory of events 
prior to the Trojan war had been preserved solely by tradition, j- It 

* History of Greece, vol. i. p. 20. 

f Diodorus Siculus observes that " some writers have rejected the ancient fables 
(j*wfloXoy»«?)» on account of the difficulty of discussing them," and acknowledges that his 
first six books contain the deeds and fables which occurred previous to the Trojan war : 
(lib. i. c. 24.) but Thucydides makes the same remark with respect to the events which 
took place prior to the Peloponnesian war,—" For, before this," observes he, "it is impossible 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 87 

may, therefore, be allowable to endeavour to ascertain, by means of such 
traditions, and by the affinity of the Greek with other languages, who 
the people were from whom the Greeks actually derived their origin. 

This question has been further perplexed by the discordant opinions 
which learned men have expressed with respect to the Pelasgi and the 
Hellenes. But the accounts given of these two people by ancient 
writers appear to me to be so brief and unsatisfactory as scarcely to 
admit of a reasonable conclusion being deduced from them ; and it is 
at least evident that all which has been since written on the subject 
tends rather to obscure than to elucidate it * : for it is generally ad- 
mitted that in ancient times the Pelasgi occupied the whole of Greece, 
which was called from them, according to Herodotus, Pelasgia, and that 
Hellen was the son of Deucalion who reigned in Thessaly ; and yet it 
is requisite to believe that the posterity of Hellen, who grew up among 
the Pelasgi, spoke a distinct language, and finally expelled the latter 
from Greece. This last circumstance is possible ; but to render it 
credible that the children of one family should speak a language differ- 
ent from that of the people amongst whom they were born and lived, 
requires much stronger testimony than is contained in the single, 



to ascertain the more ancient events, on account of the length of time that has elapsed ; 
but, judging from appearances, I am led to believe that, in remote antiquity, nothing 
remarkable occurred either in war or otherwise ;" (lib. i. c. 1.) and Herodotus commences his 
history with Candaules, king of Lydia, who reigned from 735 to 680 B. C. 

* I ought to except that very learned work, the Horae Pelasgicse of Bishop Marsh ; 
who remarks, in p. 25 ; — " Even independently of Homer's testimony, it is incredible that 
the cause should have operated so long before the Trojan war, if, as Thucydides himself 
declares, the effect was not produced till after the Trojan war. But, whatever was the 
period when the descendants of Hellen obtained the superiority which led to the general 
adoption of their name, there is no reason to suppose that they spoke a different language 
from that which was used in the other parts of Greece, to which they extended their 
dominion. At that time Greece in general was called IleAaa-y'a; and the very country from 
which the 'EAAvjvej came was distinguished in particular by the epithet n=A«<ryixoj. 
The substitution, therefore, of one term for another could not have been accompanied with the 
substitution of one language for another ; and even if the family of Hellen had spoken a 
different language from that of the Pelasgi, the language of that family could not have 
superseded the language previously spoken in Greece, unless they exterminated as well as 
conquered, which no Greek historian has ever asserted." 



gg THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

isolated, but often quoted passage of Herodotus : — " But, with regard 
to the language which the Pelasgi used, I have nothing positive to say. 
If, however, I may speak from the testimony afforded by those still 
existing Pelasgi who inhabit the city Kreston, and Placia and Sylace 
on the Hellespont, and other Pelasgian towns which have changed 
their names, the Pelasgi used a barbarous language : but the Hellenic 
people, as it appears to me, have from their first origin always spoken 
the same language." Yet Herodotus, in the very same sentence, con- 
tradicts his own opinion, by adding that " the Hellenes, when they 
separated from the Pelasgi, were weak and few in number, but after- 
wards increased to a numerous people, principally by incorporating 
barbarous tribes with themselves :" * for it must be obvious that such 
an incorporation could not take place without materially affecting the 
Hellenic language. The conjecture, however, of Herodotus depends 
entirely on the justness of the claim to a Pelasgic origin advanced by 
these towns in Thrace, and of this no evidence whatever is given : but 
it is at once assumed that they actually spoke the language of the 
Pelasgi, who are supposed to have been expelled from Greece at least 
600 years before, and an inference is then drawn from this assumption, 
that the Hellenic differed from the Pelasgic language ; a mode of rea- 
soning much too inconclusive to support any opinion that is founded 
upon it.f 

Were, however, this inference to be admitted, it would still be ne- 
cessary to prove the precise period at which the Hellenic language 
became predominant in Greece ; and it will scarcely be contended that 
this could have taken place before the Greeks were distinguished by 
the name of Hellenes : for this name is universally admitted to have 

* Herodotus, lib. i. c. 58. 

t As, also, the Ionians and iEolians were unquestionably comprised under the name of 
Hellenes, the following words of Herodotus deserve particular attention, as he thus clearly 
identifies them with the Pelasgi : — Iwvsg 8s, oo-ov pav xpovov sv ITsXoTroi/vvjo-w tvjv vvv xuXeopevvjv 
A^«i»»jv, xai npiv Aa.va.ov ts xai Eu0ov «7nx=<70«j eg TIsKottovvyjo-ov, wj 'EAXrjvsj Asyoucn, sxaXeovro 
fleAatryoi AiyaAssf S7n 8s loovog too avQov, Iwvsj. NrjtrJMTai 8s sTrraxaidexx Trapsi^ovTO vsac, 
07rXi(Tj«.£V0i coj 'EAAtjvsj* x«i tovto UiXaaytKov e&vog, vo-Tspov 8s loovixov sx\y)Syi, xat a\ SuwSsxa 
7roXi=j Iaivef, ol «7r'A9)jvswv, AtoXss; 8=, kfaxoVTa vsag 7rapzi%ovTO, s<TXsuacry.svoi ts wj 'EAAijvsj, xa< 
Tw:uXa.i KaAeO|U,svoj ITsAa<ryoi, a>j 'EAAijvojv Xoyog. — Lib. vii. c. 94, 95. 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 89 

originated from Hellen, the son of Deucalion ; and, if his posterity spoke 
a different language from that of their countrymen, it must be con- 
cluded that their name and language acquired a predominance exactly 
in the same manner and at the same time ; but Thucydides observes 
that, " before the Trojan war, Hellas [Greece] does not appear to have 
acted in common. But it seems to me that the whole country was not 
then even called by this name, and that not only this appellation did not 
exist before Hellen, the son of Deucalion, but that parts of the country 
were named after the different people [that inhabited them], and prin- 
cipally the Pelasgi. Hellen, however, and his children becoming pow- 
erful in Phthiotis, and introducing themselves into other cities for the 
purpose of assistance, individuals from this intercourse were generally 
called Hellenes ; but it was a long time before the application of this 
name to all the people prevailed. Homer strongly proves this, who, 
born long after the Trojan war, never applies this name to the Greeks 
generally, but only to those who came from Phthiotis with Achilles, 
and who were, in fact, the original Hellenes ; but he calls them in his 
verses Danai, Argivi, and Achasi."* It may, therefore, be reasonably 
concluded that, previous to the Trojan war, no such distinction prevailed 
in the language of ancient Greece as Hellenic and Pelasgic. 

Another circumstance in the early history of the Greeks, the intro- 
duction of letters into their country by Cadmus, which is generally 
admitted, appears to me to be completely disproved by the Greek 
alphabet ; for, whether the eight letters said to have been unknown to 
Homer are included or omitted in it, its system of letters and sounds 
agrees not with that of either the Arabic or Samaritan alphabets,* 

* Thucydides, lib. i. c. 3. The conclusions of Thucydides are controverted by Strabo ; 
but, in the edition of Strabo, Amstel. 1 707, I find nothing but these two strange notes : — 
in p. 370., " De hoc Thucydidis loco accurate disputatur infra libro xiv. Casaub. ; " in 
p. 661., " Locus Thucydidis est in procemio : mihi vero, ut ingenue dicam quod sentiam, 
non videtur Thucydides validis destitui rationibus, quibus suam sententiam contra Strabo- 
nem nostrum tueatur ; verum htzc tractant quibus plus est otii. Casaub : " but the note of 
Duker, in support of the passage above quoted, in his edition of Thucydides, is satisfactory 
and convincing, though too long to be extracted. 

f The Phenician is supposed to have been the same as the Samaritan alphabet ; but see 
this subject farther discussed in Chap. IX. 

N 



f)0 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

The Samaritan alphabet has twenty-two letters, the Arabic twenty- 
eight*, the Greek either sixteen or twenty -four, and neither the Sama- 
ritan nor Arabic has any vowels f*, though the Greek has seven : the 
Samaritan has thus, at least, eleven, and the Arabic fourteen sounds 
unknown to the Greek, while the latter, when complete, has seven 
sounds unknown to the other two ; and, as it might be expected, 
the arrangement of the letters in the Greek and the other two alphabets 
is totally dissimilar. It is, therefore, surprising that such striking dif- 
ferences did not convince learned men that an alphabet of twenty-two 
or twenty-eight letters could not possibly have been the origin of one 
of sixteen ; and that no colonists, who had sufficient influence to induce 
a foreign people to receive their alphabet, would ever have given up, in 
order to make use of seven sounds previously unknown, eleven or four- 
teen sounds to which they had been accustomed from their infancy, and 
without which their own language must have become unintelligible to 
each other. It is not, therefore, the form of the letters by which the 
alphabets of different people ought to be identified, but the system 
of sounds essential to the proper pronunciation of their respective lan- 
guages ; and, whenever this is radically dissimilar, as in the Greek and 
Samaritan alphabets, it must necessarily follow that the. Greeks could 
not have received theirs from the Phenicians. As, also, there seems to 
be no doubt that the Phenician was an Arabic dialect, and as the 
person or colony who is supposed to have introduced letters into 
Greece must have exerted some influence on its language, the Greek 
ought consequently at this day to contain many Arabic words : but, as 
none such exist, their absence confirms the conclusion drawn from the 
dissimilarity of their alphabetical systems, and both circumstances irre- 
sistibly prove that Greece was not indebted, either for its alphabet or 
for any part of its language, to any people of an Arabic origin.:): 

* The present Arabic alphabet is a modern invention, but it cannot be supposed thai 
letters would be invented to express sounds that were unknown to the Arabs. 

f This remark must be restricted to the letters of the alphabet ; for, in speaking, the 
Arabs, of course, make use of the three vowels, a, i, and u, of other people, but these are 
not represented by distinct characters. 

% The argument contained in a preceding note (p. 21.) had previously escaped my notice; 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 



91 



But, had a just conclusion been drawn from the premises which 
ancient writers present, no uncertainty could ever have existed with 
respect to the country from which Greece derived both her language 
and her people. In a preceding quotation It has been seen that 
Thucydides ascribes to the Pelasgi, amongst the other people of early 
Greece, the principal importance ; and it appears from different 
passages in Strabo and other writers, that they must at one time have 
possessed nearly the whole country : but Strabo further states, " The 
Pelasgi were a great nation, as history attests ; for Menecrates the 
Elean, in his work on the foundation of cities, says that the whole of 
the maritime country, commencing from Mycale, now called Ionia, 
and the neighbouring islands, were inhabited by the Pelasgi." * The 
settlements, also, of the Pelasgi in Italy and other places sufficiently 
attest their numbers and their wide-spread migrations ; and the 
epithet Ao< which Homer applies to them, and the honorific epithet 
Pelasgic that not unfrequently occurs in Grecian poetry, fully prove 
the former power of this once celebrated people, j" It is, therefore, 



but it is so ingenious and so conclusive, that it must appear surprising how any person 
acquainted with the peculiar structure of the Hebrew or Arabic tongue could ever have 
derived any other language from it : for, in these words, it must be evident that they 
receive their particular signification from the vowels alone, craXaj, <re\xs, ersXjj, avXvjg ; 
malus, miles, moles, mulus ; tan, ten, tin, tone, tun, tune ; and in these Sanscrit ones, 
pati, pita, puta, pota : but it is equally evident that the meaning of these Arabic 
words, harama, hirman, muharram, hiramat, muhtarim, depends entirely on the radical 
consonants hrm ; because these, and its other derivatives, are merely modifications of 
the sense of the radical word. 

* Strabo, p. 62 1 . 

f The following passage in Strabo deserves particular attention : — " But almost every 
person agrees that the Pelasgi, an ancient people, predominated throughout the whole of 
Greece, and particularly among the .ZEolians of Thessaly ; and Ephorus is of opinion that, 
though by origin Arcadians, they embraced a military life, and engaging many people to 
associate with them they conferred their name on all, and obtained great celebrity, not only 
among the Gi'eeks but among the other nations where they chanced to come : for even in 
Crete were colonies of them settled, as Homer sings ; since Ulysses thus speaks to 
Penelope, - 

" ' Crete awes the circling waves, a fruitful soil ! 
And ninety cities crown the sea-born isle : 

N 2 



92 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

most unaccountable that, while aware of these circumstances, Grecian 
writers should prefer to trace the origin of their nation from mixed 
hordes of barbarians, rather than to derive it from so illustrious a 
source. The names, also, of mountains and rivers in Thrace, and the 
birthplaces of their earlier poets, ought to have led them to enquire 
to what cause the early civilisation of a country, which afterwards 
relapsed into barbarism, was to be attributed ; and they would then 
have found that it had been occasioned by migrations from Asia 
Minor of a civilised people, who, after residing some time in Thrace, 
had proceeded into Greece. The very tract which bodies of men would 
pursue, previous to the general use of navigation, was thus most 



Mix'd with her genuine sons, adopted names 
In various tongues avow their various claims ; 
Cydonians dreadful with the bended yew, 
And bold Pelasjri boast a native's due :' 

and Homer also calls that part of Thessaly which is situated between the mouth of the 
Peneus and Thermopylae, as far as Pindus, Pelasgian Argos, because the Pelasgi had ruled 
over it : he further calls the Dodonaean Jupiter Pelasgic, — 

" * O thou supreme ! high throned all height above ! 
Oh great Pelasgic, Dodonaean Jove ! ' 

" Many, also, call the people of Epirus Pelasgi, for that far did their sway extend : and 
numerous heroes, from whom many people were named, were likewise called Pelasgi ; 
for even Lesbos is called Pelasgic ; and Homer calls the people who bordered on the 
Cilicians in the Troad Pelasgi, — 

" ' The fierce Pelasgi next, in war renown'd, 
March from Larissa's ever fertile ground : 
In equal arms their brother leaders shine, 
Hippothous bold, and Pyleus the divine.' 

" The authority on which Ephorus thought that the Pelasgi were Arcadians was Hesiod, 
who says, ' Six were the sons of godlike Lycaon, whom formerly Pelasgus begot ; ' and 
Ephorus also mentions that the Peloponnesus was called Pelasgia ; and Euripides, in 
Archelaus, says that Danaus, the father of fifty daughters, coming to Argos, founded the 
city of Inachus, and established the custom of calling those who were formerly named 
Pelasgiotae Danai. Anticlides writes that the Pelasgi founded Lemnos and Imbros, and 
that some of them accompanied Tyrrhenus the son of Atys into Italy; the Attic historians, 
also, relate that the Pelasgi were established in Athens, and that from their wandering about 
like birds they were called Pelarge" [i. e. Storks]. — Strabo, lib. v. p. 220, et seq. 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 



93 






clearly pointed out by their own traditions ; and yet the writers of 
Greece have most strangely overlooked the truth, to lose themselves in 
the mazes of error. 

The general opinion of antiquity, at the same time, attests that the 
matchless poems of Homer were composed in Asia Minor ; but Thu- 
cydides expressly states that no migrations took place from Greece 
until at least eighty years after the Trojan war.* Whether, therefore, 
Homer was born before or after the Ionian migration became, as it 
appears from Strabo f, a subject of dispute amongst ancient writers ; 
but the arguments and authorities by which they supported their 
respective opinions, have not been so preserved as to admit of either 
the one or the other being received as unexceptionable testimony, 
were even the moderns capable of deciding on these grounds a 
question which the ancients considered as doubtful : yet the received 
system of chronology places the capture of Troy in 1184, the Ionian 
migration in 1044, and the age of Homer in 907 B. C. According, 
however, to every just principle of reasoning with respect to evidence, 
the testimony of those Grecian writers who maintain that Homer was 
born after the Ionian migration, is so evidently influenced by the desire 
of increasing the glory of their country, by proving that so pre-eminent 
a poet was of Grecian origin, as to render it of much less weight than 
that of other writers, who, superior to national prejudice, claimed not 
Homer for their countryman. Sir Isaac Newton, also, has satisfac- 
torily shown that dependence cannot be placed on the received systems 
of chronology, and that the dates assigned to the early events of 
Grecian history rest on no sufficient grounds. He has, therefore, 

* Thucydides, lib. i. c. 12. 

f Strabo, p. 384. Tatianus, also, apud Euseb. Prep. Evan. lib. x. c. 11., enumerates 
various writers by whom this subject was discussed; amongst whom Crates placed the 
time when Homer flourished within eighty years after the capture of Troy, and before the 
return of the Heraclidae; Eratosthenes, 100 years after the siege of Troy ; and Aris- 
tarchus, about the time of the Ionian migration, which occurred 140 years after that event. 

The French translators of Strabo decide this question magisterially, without condescend- 
ing to give any reasons for their opinion ; for they observe, in a note on this passage, " La 
naissance d'Homere est posterieure de deux siecles au moins a l'etablissement des Ioniens 
dans l'Asie Mineure ; elle doit avoir lieu environ 900 ans avant notre ere." 



94 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

fixed the capture of Troy in 904, the age of Homer in 870, and the 
Ionic migration in 794 B.C., and thus virtually expressed his opinion 
that Homer was not a native of Greece. 

In order, however, that I may not be accused of perverting autho- 
rities in order to support a hypothesis, I must be allowed to avail 
myself of a rather long quotation from Mr. Mitford's History of Greece, 
as the reasoning contained in it seems to me unanswerable : — " These 
are then, I believe, the only passages *, within Homer's extant works, 
that speak at all affirmatively to the age in which he lived : they are 
not conclusive, and yet, united, they are strong. But the negative 
evidence, which his works afford in confirmation of them, is such that, 
but for the respect due to those who have thought differently, and 
still more perhaps to those who have doubted, I should scarcely 
hesitate to call the whole together decisive. For, had the return of 
the Heracleids preceded the times in which Homer flourished, is it 
conceivable that, among subjects which so naturally led to the mention 
of it, he should never once have alluded to so great an event, by whicli 
so total a change was made of the principal families, and indeed of 
the whole population of Peloponnesus, and of all the western coast of 
Asia Minor, with the adjacent Islands ? His geography of Pelopon- 
nesus is so minute and so exact, that Strabo has chosen to follow him 
step by step, for the purpose of tracing, from remotest antiquity, a 
complete account of that Peninsula, That in so particular an account 
of the country, before the Dorian conquest, he should have been so 
correct that no subsequent inquiry could convict him of any error, and 
yet that he should not take the least notice of any of the great changes 
in the property, the government, and the partition of the country, 
which that revolution produced, if he had lived to see them, is not 

* One of these passages is as follows : — "In the Odyssey again we find another remark- 
able passage concerning subjects for poetry : The Gods wrought the fate of Troy, and 
decreed the destruction of men, that there might be subjects for poetry to future generations. 
Had the poet lived after the return of the Heracleids, the revolution would have furnished 
subjects far more nearly interesting to hearers, in any part of either Greece itself, or the 
Grecian settlements in Asia Minor, than the war of Troy." — History of Greece, vol. i. 
p. 170. 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. gc 

easily imaginable. How naturally, upon many occasions, would some 
such pathetic observation have occurred concerning the Pelopeid, the 
Neleid, and other families, as that which in his catalogue in the Iliad, 
he makes upon the catastrophe of the royal family of iEtolia. How 
naturally, too, especially as he mentions the wars of Hercules both in 
Greece and Asia, would some compliment have fallen to the descend- 
ants of that hero, had they been in his time lords of Peloponnesus, 
instead of exiles in the mountains of Doris ; and how almost unavoid- 
able, from an inhabitant of Chios, some notice of the acquisitions of 
Agamemnon and Nestor in iEolis and Ionia, had he lived after the 
iEolic and Ionian migration ? Such subjects being open to him for 
compliment to all the princes both of the Pelopeid and Heracleid 
families, would he have neglected all and paid particular attention 
only to the extinct family of iEneas, the enemy of his nation ? With 
these strong circumstances many others meet. To complete the 
evidence which the poet himself furnishes concerning the time in 
which he lived, we must add his ignorance of idolatry, of hero-worship, 
of republics, of tyrannies, of a general name for the Greek nation, and 
of its division into Ionian, iEolian, and Dorian ; we must add the form 
of worship which he describes, without temples as without images ; 
we must add the little fame of oracles ; and his silence concerning the 
council of Amphictyons ; we must add his familiar knowledge of 
Sidon, and his silence concerning Tyre ; and lastly we may add the 
loss of his works in Peloponnesus, whose new inhabitants had com- 
paratively little interest in them, and their preservation among the 
colonists in Asia, who reckoned his principal heroes among their 
ancestors. All these circumstances together appear to amount almost 
to conviction that Homer lived before the return of the Heracleids : 
all together afford also strong proof that the editors of the Rhapsodies 
found them genuine and gave them so to the world." 

The whole, therefore, of the preceding reasoning and authorities 
seems to prove incontrovertibly that Homer was not a Greek, but a 
native of Asia Minor ; and, consequently, that the language in which 
his poems are written was formerly the language of that country. 



96 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 



This last conclusion is evidently confirmed by the account of the 
colony led into Greece by Pelops, the only one of which any particulars 
have been preserved. But, even with respect to the grandfather of 
Agamemnon, occurs the usual discordancy in the writings of ancient 
authors : for by some he is represented as an exile who obtained a 
small principality by marriage * ; Thucydides relates that, though a 
stranger, he acquired power by bringing from Asia great riches into 
a poor country "j" ; but Strabo, that he led people from Phrygia into 
the country since called Peloponnesus. X That an individual would 
become acquainted with the language of the people amongst whom 
he lived is to be expected ; but that a colony so powerful that its 
leader was enabled to possess himself of the country into which 
he migrated, and to occasion its ancient name to be superseded by 
his own, should give up its own language, and acquire a foreign 
tongue by the second generation so perfectly as not to be distinguished 
from the original inhabitants, is too inconsistent with probability to 
appear in the least credible : but, if Pelops led a colony into Greece, 
this change must either have taken place, as Homer notices no 
difference in the language of the Peloponnesians from that of the 
other Greeks, or the mother tongue of the colonists and of the Greeks 
must have been exactly the same. 

The original seat of the Pelasgi, therefore, and the language of 
Homer, and probably of the colony led by Pelops, demonstrate that 
Greece derived from Asia Minor her language and her people. The 
researches of Mr. Mitford have led him to the same conclusion, for 
he observes, " It appears from a strong concurrence of circumstances 
recorded by ancient writers, that the early inhabitants of Asia Minor, 
Thrace, and Greece, were the same people. The Leleges, Caucones, 
and Pelasgians, enumerated by Homer among the Asiatic nations, are 
mentioned by Strabo as the principal names among those, whom at 
the same time he calls barbarians, who in earliest times occupied 
Greece. § It has been supposed by some authors, but apparently 

* Diodorus Siculus, lib. iv. c. 73. . f Thucydides, lib. i. c. 9. 

% Strabo, 321. § Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 52. 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 97 

without good grounds, that, before the Trojan war, migrations had 
been made from Greece to Asia Minor. We have seen that the 
earliest known people of the western parts of that country differed 
little, in origin or in language, from the inhabitants of Greece."* 

But there seems no doubt that Asia had advanced to a considerable 
degree of civilisation at a very early period of the world ; and, had 
migrations passed from it into Greece, it is impossible that its early 
inhabitants existed in that rude and barbarous state described by 
Grecian writers, and particularly by Thucydides. The picture is, 
certainly, not flattering ; and hence it is concluded that nothing but 
the truth could have induced a Greek to depict his ancestors in 
colours so mortifying to his vanity. But from what source did He- 
rodotus and Thucydides derive their knowledge of these circumstances ? 
It is admitted that history was not in being ; and, most assuredly, these 
were not the subjects which tradition would love to select and to dwell 
upon f ; while the very existence of tradition necessarily implies a certain 
progress in the formation of society, and the occurrence of events that 
deserved to be remembered. It is evident, therefore, that these 
descriptions are mere fancy pictures, which are entitled to no more 
credit than the verses of Hesiod or Ovid ; and that nothing whatever 
is known of the actual state of Greece until the time when Homer 
composed his immortal poems. But, as usual, the very traditions 
preserved by the Grecian writers themselves prove that, a considerable 
time before the Trojan war, the state of society which they describe 
must have ceased in Greece ; and here again I gladly avail myself of 
Mr. Mitford's assistance, as his authority must be more satisfactory to 

* Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 251. 

f Observe these words of Thucydides, — " It appears that the country, now called Greece, 
was anciently not inhabited in a permanent manner, but migrations were frequent, and those 
who were compelled by superior numbers readily left their habitations ; for there was no 
commerce, and no easy intercourse with each other either by land or sea ; each cultivated 
what was necessary for his subsistence, and possessed no superfluity of riches ; none planted 
trees, for it was uncertain whether some other would not carry away the fruit ; and thus 
thinking that they would obtain their daily subsistence any where, the inhabitants migrated 
without difficulty." Again, " In former times all Greece was armed, because their 
habitations were defenceless, and because they could not otherwise move about in safety." 
— Lib. i. c. 2. 6. 



98 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

the reader than any observations of mine : — " Herodotus asserts that 
the ancient hymns, sung at the festival of Apollo at Delos, were 
composed by Olen, a Lycian ; and Pausanias says that the hymns of 
Olen the Lycian were the oldest known to the Greeks, and that Olen 
the Hyperborean, who seems to have been the same person, was the 
inventor of the Grecian hexameter verse. It seems a necessary 
inference that the language both of Thrace and Lycia was Greek. 
The hymns of Thamyris and Orpheus were admired for singular 
sweetness even in Plato's time ; and the Thracians, Thamyras, Orpheus, 
Musaeus, and Eumolpus *, with the Lycian Olen, were the ac- 
knowledged fathers of Grecian poetry, the acknowledged reformers of 
Grecian manners ; those who, according to Grecian accounts, began 
that polish in morals, manners, and language, which, in after ages, 
characterised the Greek and distinguished him from the barbarian." 
It needs no argument, I presume, to show that poetry, which was 
admired for its singular sweetness in a polished age, could not have 
been composed in such a state of society as is described by Thucydides. 
If the preceding discussion should appear too prolix, the importance 
of the subject will, I trust, be considered as a sufficient excuse : for 
the Egyptian and Phenician origin of the people, language, and 
letters of Greece is so firmly established an opinion, that even Mr. 
Mitford has not always been enabled to escape its influence, but has 
sometimes drawn conclusions that are inconsistent with his own 
premises ; and it therefore became necessary to show that the 
received systems of chronology and of history, as applicable to the 
early times of Greece, have been admitted without due examination. 
The former writings, also, of learned men will evince that a persist* 
ance in tracing all languages to the Hebrew, Scythian, or Celtic, must 
render all enquiries into the affinity of languages an endless reasoning 
in the same circle, not only without producing any beneficial result, 
but with the positive disadvantage of giving rise to speculations which 

* The period when these person flourished cannot be ascertained. Sir Isaac Newton 
places Eumolpus 103 years, and Orpheus, who was one of the Argonauts, thirty-three years, 
before the Trojan war ; but their antiquity seems to have been much greater. 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 



99 



cast a ridicule on etymology itself; but, if the language of Greece be 
the same as that which was anciently spoken in Asia Minor, a new 
object of enquiry presents itself, the pursuit of which may, perhaps, 
lead to as much certainty as can ever be acquired with respect to 
subjects of remote antiquity. 

On this point Adelunghas advanced the following singular opinion : 

" Asia Minor was in the oldest times probably inhabited by people 

of the Semitic branch ; who were supplanted in the principal and 

western division of this country by immigrating colonies of Thracians. 

In the smaller and eastern division, part was possessed by the Semitic 

Cilicians and Cappadocians, and part by various small tribes of distinct 

origin and language." * But he does not sufficiently explain the 

grounds on which was formed a conclusion that directly contradicts 

both probability and history ; for, even according to the Mosaic 

account, Babylonia was the country first peopled, and, consequently, 

Asia Minor must have received its inhabitants from the conterminous 

country at present called Mesopotamia. But it seems admitted that, 

in the time of Jacob, his language and that of Chaldea were not the 

same, and I have perhaps proved, that the language of Abraham could 

not have been the present Hebrew ; whence it necessarily follows that 

the original language of Asia Minor, if peopled from Babylonia f, 

was not Semitic. It has also been seen that the first Grecian poet was 

Olen, a Lycian ; and " Olympus, the father of Grecian music, whose 

compositions, which Plato calls divine, retained the highest reputation 

even in Plutarch's time, was a Phrygian. In the Grecian mythology 

we find continual references to Asiatic and Thracian stories ; and even 

in the heroic ages, which followed the mystic, the Greeks and Asiatics 

appear to have communicated as kindred people. Pelops, a fugitive 

Asiatic prince, acquired a kingdom by marriage in Peloponnesus ; and 

Bellerophon, a prince of Corinth, in the same manner acquired the 

* Adelung's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 344. 

f For brevity's sake, I must be allowed to use this word for the whole country which was 
bounded on the east by Mons Zagros, on the north by the mountains of Armenia, and on 
the west and south by the Euphrates. 

o 2 



s 



UO THE greek language. 

kingdom of Ly cia in Asia. Herodotus remarks that the Lydian laws 
and manners, even in his time, very nearly resembled the Grecian ; 
and the Lycians and Pamphylians were so evidently of the same race 
with the Greeks, that he supposed them the descendants of emigrants 
from Crete, from Athens, and other parts of Greece."* 

When, therefore, their own mythology and traditions, and the lan- 
guage of their most admired poet, so incontrovertibly proved their 
origin, at least as far as it was remembered, it seems passing strange 
that Grecian writers should have concurred in tracing their language, 
letters, and religion, to Egypt and Phenicia ; that most modern writers 
should have continued in the same error must be ascribed to that 
necessary connection which they supposed to exist between the 
Christian religion and the Hebrew language, on which I have before 
remarked : but the existence of the Pelasgi in Greece is admitted, 
and their Asiatic origin and their power can scarcely be disputed ; 
in which case their expulsion from that country by rude and 
innumerous tribes of barbarians must be considered in the high est 
degree improbable. In what manner, however, their name disappeared 
in history it is now impossible to ascertain : but there is every reason 
to conclude that they were the inhabitants of Greece at the period of 
Pelops's arrival in it ; and, as they were a kindred race, they may have 
gradually become incorporated with the new colonists who, about that 
time or earlier, migrated from Asia Minor and Thrace ; vague 
conjectures, therefore, and untenable hypotheses must yield to 
conclusions, the correctness of which are established by their pro- 
bability, and by their accordance with all that is related in ancient 
history. 

The language, also, in which the Iliad and Odyssey are written, 
appears much too perfect to render it at all credible that it could 
have received its wonderful beauty and excellence in such a state of 
society as Homer describes. When kings dressed their own dinners, 
and princesses washed their own clothes, the formation of a copious and 
polished language could not possibly take place ; for experience has 

* Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 53. 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 101 

sufficiently proved that a rude people speak a rude language, and 
that its refinement is produced solely by the progress of civilisation. 
To suppose, therefore, that the Greek language started forth at once, 
like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, arrayed in all its strength and 
majesty, might be consistent with fiction, but would be repugnant to 
truth. Greek, also, had been employed, long before Homer, in 
poetical compositions which were admired in later times ; and, con- 
sequently, with whatever beauties his genius may have embellished 
the style of his unrivalled poems, still the language had been previously 
polished and adapted to poetry : but all former productions have 
perished, and, as the Greeks were neither philologists nor judicious 
antiquarians, no means now exist for satisfactorily determining the 
cause to which this striking discordance between the language of 
Homer and the state of civilisation which he describes ought to be 
attributed. 

I am averse to conjecture and hypothesis, but these Researches would 
fail in connection did I not propose a solution of this difficulty; for it 
appears to me extremely probable that, at some remote period, a power- 
ful kingdom may have flourished in the delightful country of Asia Minor, 
in which the language, afterwards called Greek, was spoken, and in which 
it received its wonderful refinement and perfection. The rise and fall of 
kingdoms in Asia seem sufficiently authenticated by history, and this 
monarchy, therefore, may, either from internal dissensions or from the 
attacks of a foreign power, have also fallen, and thus have given rise 
to the number of small states in which Asia Minor was divided at 
the time of Homer. This supposition receives support from a cir- 
cumstance which is noticed by Mr. Mitford : — " Homer reckons time 
upward no further than he can trace the genealogies of his heroes ; 
which all end in a god, a river, or some unaccountable personage in 
the second, third, or at most fourth generation beyond those of the 
Trojan war. The royal race of Troy forms the only exception ; Jupiter 
was ancestor to Hector in the seventh degree."* If, consequently, 
Homer had the means of becoming acquainted with the ancestry of 

# Mitford's History of Greece, vol. i. p. 168. 



102 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

his heroes, a knowledge always attributed to him by antiquity, his 
ignorance of more than four, or at most seven generations, either in 
Greece or Asia Minor, would seem to be a strong proof that about 
two hundred years before the siege of Troy some revolution must 
have taken place in each of these countries : at which time it may 
be supposed that the small states in Asia Minor, which he enumerates, 
may have arisen on the ruins of the monarchy which once existed in 
that country ; and that, from the effect of this revolution, originated 
those families of chiefs and kings, whose ancestry Homer was not able 
trace beyond the fourth or seventh generation. 

To this conjecture, I am aware that the improbability of the Greeks 
and inhabitants of Asia Minor relapsing into the state of society 
described by Homer, had they ever acquired a high degree of civilis- 
ation under a once flourishing monarchy, forms a strong objection ; 
but, had its subversion been effected by internal dissensions, and more 
particularly by an irruption of barbarians, a state of comparative 
anarchy might have ensued after the dissolution of the former govern- 
ment. Hence, mutual intercourse becoming interrupted, and protection 
insecure, the people might have gradually forgotten the manners of 
more civilised life, and might have acquired those habits, and that 
independency, which are the necessary consequences of every man 
being obliged to depend on. his individual exertions for his subsistence 
and his safety. In Greece, particularly, from the very nature of 
colonies, and from their perhaps mixing with men less civilised, the 
arts and institutions of the mother country would be sooner forgotten, 
and the people would sooner and more completely relapse into that 
semibarbarous state which is described by Homer. I admit, however, 
that, unless some fact could be produced which showed that the 
ancestors of a people so situated had been formerly more civilised, a 
contrary conclusion would be the most probable ; but the language 
of the Iliad and Odyssey is, I conceive, that very fact, which, like 
Latin in the middle ages, is an indisputable proof that the people by 
whom it was originally spoken, and among whom it acquired such 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 1Q3 

beauty and refinement, must also have attained a high degree of 
civilisation.* 

There are, however, no sufficient means for fixing the precise period 
when migration proceeded from Asia Minor into Greece ; but, judging 
from the Homeric genealogies, and from the origin of the early 
Grecian poets being ascribed to Thrace, it would seem most probable 
that the intercourse been Asia Minor and Greece commenced about 
two hundred years before the siege of Troy. It would, therefore, be 
desirable to ascertain the state of that part of eastern Asia which 
bordered on Asia Minor at this particular period ; but the conflicting 
systems of chronology and ancient history render this impossible, as 
the only event which could have effected any change in the govern- 
ment of that country, would be the conquest of the Babylonian empire 
by the Ninus of Herodotus, as I have before supposed. Were this 
conjecture, however, admitted, and also that Homer could not have 
been born more than one hundred years after the Trojan war, it would 
follow that, Homer being born in 907 B. C, the siege of Troy must 
have happened in 1007 B. C. : but the revolt of the Medes took place, 
as I have before observed, in 749 B. C, to which add the duration of 
the Assyrian empire according to Herodotus of 520 years, and the 
commencement of the reign of Ninus will be in 1269 B. C, conse- 

* In his History of Greece, vol. i. p. 93., Mr. Mitford remarks, but not with his usual 
critical acumen and sound judgment, — " Nor does any circumstance in the early history of 
the Grecian people appear more difficult to account for, even in conjecture, than the 
superiority of form and polish which their speech acquired in an age beyond tradition, and 
in circumstances apparently most unfavourable ; for it was amid continual migrations, 
expulsions, mixtures of various hordes, and revolutions of every kind, the most unquestion- 
able circumstances of early Grecian history, that was formed that language, so simple in its 
analogy, of such complex art in its composition and inflexion, of such clearness, force, and 
elegance in its contexture, and of such singular sweetness, variety, harmony, and majesty in 
its sound. Already in the time of Homer and Hesiod, long before writing was common, 
we find it in full possession of these perfections ; and we learn, on no less authority than 
that of Plato, that still in his time the diction of Thamyras and Orpheus, supposed to have 
lived long before Homer, was singularly pleasing." After these just and forcible praises of 
the Greek language, can any thing be more unphilological, unphiiosophical, and contrary to 
experience, than to ascribe its formation to such a state of society ; for security, leisure, and 
a certain freedom of mind from other cares are, at least, indispensable for the cultivation and 
refinement of language. 



104 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

quently 262 years before the siege of Troy. This date so exactly 
synchronises with the probable commencement of the intercourse 
between Greece and Asia Minor, as to render it not unlikely that 
some revolution in the latter country was the consequence of Ninus's 
victory over the Babylonian empire ; and thus, these several circum- 
stances combined may give much probability to the conjectures that 
I have proposed. 

But the migrations of the Pelasgi must be ascribed to an earlier 
period, and, supposing that they originally spoke the same language 
as the colonies which subsequently immigrated into Greece, the identity 
of this language with that of Asia Minor would become almost 
demonstrated. Bishop Marsh, however, has remarked that, "after all, 
then, we must be contented with tracing the Pelasgi up to their 
European settlement in Thrace. Beyond that limit their history is all 
conjecture. We may infer, indeed, from the known progress of 
migration, that among the ancestors of the Thracian Pelasgi some 
must have been once established in Asia Minor; and Menecrates 
Elaita, in his work risp< K.Ti<reuv, asserted that they actually were 
so. We may further conclude that their ancestors were once esta- 
blished still wore to the eastward ; but Thrace will still remain the limit 
of the actual knowledge which we possess on the origin of the Pelasgi. 
And it is useful to know the limit ; for hence we know, when we are 
arguing about the Pelasgi, whether we are building on a rock, or 
building on the sand." * When, however, the assistance of ancient 
writers fails, recourse may be had to affinity of language, as the most 
certain means of ascertaining the origin of nations. If, therefore, a 
language actually exists in Asia at this day, which can be incontro- 
vertibly identified with Greek, not only in numerous words, but also 
in grammatical structure, the Asiatic origin of Greek will scarcely be 
disputed. 

Greek, at the same time, is not an original language, as is 
sufficiently proved by the impossibility of decompounding many of 

* Horae Pelasgicae, p. 19. 



THE GREEK LANGUAGE. iq* 

its words, or tracing all of them to roots existing in itself. The 
abortive attempts, also, of several writers to find these roots in 
Hebrew, Celtic, or Gothic ; and the equally unsuccessful endeavours 
to determine the parent tongue of the cognate terms which appear in 
Greek, Latin, and the Teutonic dialects, must evince that there is 
some common origin from which all these languages have been 
derived, which has not been yet ascertained. But, when the reader 
examines the Comparative Table and remarks contained in the second 
part of this work, he will perhaps admit that all the difficulties on 
this point, that have hitherto perplexed etymologists, are satisfac- 
torily and conclusively explained by considering the Sanscrit as 
either the parent tongue from which the Greek, Latin, and the 
Teutonic dialects have been derived, or at least as the language 
which has best preserved the undeniable marks of their common 
parentage. 

But the only country in which Sanscrit still flourishes is India ; and, 
consequently, if Asia Minor be not admitted to be the intermediate 
country, through which Sanscrit words and Sanscrit grammar have 
passed into the Greek language, in what manner can this singular 
circumstance be accounted for ? Suppose, however, that Sanscrit was 
the original tongue of Babylonia, and that Asia Minor was peopled in 
an early period of the world from this conterminous country ; and 
this supposition alone will, in the simplest and most probable manner, 
explain the manner in which the Greek, Latin, and Teutonic dialects 
exhibit such incontrovertible evidence of their common origin. For it 
must be recollected that their radical affinity with Sanscrit must have 
existed before the poems written by Homer, because in them the 
Greek language appears completely formed ; and it is sufficiently 
established by ancient writers, that after the time of Homer no such 
communication took place among the Greeks, Latins, or Goths, as 
could have effected any changes in the radical structure of their 
respective languages : these, consequently, had received that form, 
which they have in every essential respect preserved until the present 



106 THE GREEK LANGUAGE. 

day, at least 1000 years before Christ. Let, therefore, the attention be 
fixed on this remote date ; let the relative position of India and Greece 
be considered ; and let the remarkable affinity that exists between 
Greek, Latin, Gothic, and Sanscrit be examined ; and then the 
extreme probability of the hypothesis now proposed will at once 
become evident, 






107 



CHAP. VIII. 

THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 

I should be relieved from considerable embarrassment, were the 
following opinion of Home Tooke well founded : — " But it is a great 
mistake, into which both the Italian and Latin etymologists have 
fallen, to suppose that all the Italian must be found in the Latin, and 
all the Latin in the Greek ; for the fact is otherwise. The bulk and 
foundation of the language is Greek ; but great part of the Latin is 
the language of our northern ancestors, grafted upon the Greek ; and 
to our northern language the etymologist must go for that part of 
the Latin which the Greek will not furnish. We want, therefore, the 
testimony of no historians to conclude that the founders of the 
Roman state and of the Latin tongue came not from Asia, but the 
north of Europe ; for the language cannot lye." * But this opinion, 
so positively expressed, is disproved by the simple circumstance of 
there still existing in Latin many Sanscrit words which cannot be 
found either in Greek or in any of the Teutonic dialects. 

But that the antiquarians of Italy have not been able to throw any 
light on the origin of its primitive inhabitants and their language, 
appears from the first sentences of Tiraboschi's most learned work on 
the literature of Italy : — " La Storia Generale," observes he, " della 
Letteratura Italiana, ch' io intraprendo a scrivere, dee necessariamente 
prender principio dagli antichi popoli, che in Italia ebbero stanza ed 
impero. Ma chi furono essi ? D' onde, e come vi vennero ? Quali 
furono i lor costumi e loro imprese ? Eccoci in una questione, involta 
ancora fra dense tenebre, cui dottissimi uomini hanno finora cercato in 
vano di sciogliere e diradare. Aborigini, Ombri, Pelasgi, Tirreni, 
Liguri, ed altre genti di somiglianti nomi dagli antichi autori si 

* Epea Ptereonta, vol. ii. p. 1 40. 
p 2 



|08 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 

veggono nominati tra quegli, che furon de' primi ad abitare e a 
coltivare 1' Italia ; e molti trai moderni scrittori hanno 1' ingegno e il 
saper loro rivolto a indagare 1' origine, e a descriver la storia di questi 
popoli : ognuno di essi forma il suo proprio sistema ; ognuno crede 
di averlo ridotto a quell' evidenza di certezza, a cui un fatto storico si 
possa condurre ; ma questa evidenza comunemente non vedesi, che 
dagli autori medesimi di tai sistemi : gli altri confessano, che siamo 
ancora al bujo, e appena sperano di poterne uscire giammai." 

As all attempts, however, to trace the Latin language to a Gothic 
or Celtic origin must, I believe, prove fruitless, it necessarily follows 
that Italy must have received that part of its inhabitants which has 
transmitted this language to posterity, if not autochthones, from 
beyond sea. The manner in which navigation, at so early a period, was 
conducted is unknown ; but there is a singular uniformity in the 
accounts of ancient writers, in describing Italy as occupied, previous to 
the arrival of these colonies, by various savage tribes ; and in ascribing 
to these colonies the subsequent civilisation of this delightful country. 
Among these, the Arcadians of Evander, and the Trojans under iEneas, 
have acquired such celebrity from the iEneid, that any remarks 
respecting them are unnecessary ; of the (Enotrians, another Arcadian 
colony, the name only has been preserved ; and thus the attention 
becomes fixed on the people called by the Greeks Tyrrheni, and by 
the Romans Hetrusci or Tusci. For Tiraboschi observes : — " Gli 
Etruschi sono que' soli tralle nazioni, che prima della fondazion di 
Roma abitaron 1' Italia, di cui qualche piu certa notizia ci sia rimasta. 
Di essi veggiam farsi menzione in molti degli antichi scrittori, e le 
cose, che essi qua e la ne dicono sparsamente, bastano a farci in- 
tendere, quanto possente nazione essa fosse, e quanto grande imperio 
avesse ella in Italia. II regno degli Etruschi (dice Livio) innanzi a' 
tempi dell' Impero Romano ampiamente si distese e in terra e in mare. 
Quanto potere essi avessero ne' due mari inferiore e superiore, da cui 
1' Italia a guisa d' isola vien circondata, il monstrano i loro nomi, che 
1' uno dagl' Italiani fu detto Tosco con nome plla lor nazione comune, 
1' altro Adriatico da Adria colonia degli Etruschi. Quindi egli 



THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 109 

aggiunge, che 1' Italia tutto fino alle Alpi fu da essi abitata, e signo- 
reggiata, toltone solo il piccol tratto di terra, che a' Veneti apparteneva. 
Ne punto meno onorevole testimonianza rende loro Diodoro Siciliano. 
I Tirreni, dice egli, chiamando con questo nome gli Etruschi, benche 
altri vogliano, che due diversi popoli essi fossero, uniti poi e confusi 
in un solo, / Tirreni celebri per fortezza e a grande impero saliti, dimolte 
e ricche citta furono fondatori. Possenti ancora in armate navali, avendo 
lungamente signoreggiato il mare, dal lor nome medesimo chiamarono il 
mar a" Italia. Furono ancora numerosi eforti i loro fanti, ec. Le quali 
cose da phi altri antichi autori vengono confermate." * 

According to Herodotus f, Strabo |, Velleius Paterculus, Pliny §, 
and the general opinion of antiquity, the Hetruscans were a colony 
who migrated from Lydia ; and Dionysius Halicarnasseus is the only 
author who controverts this conclusion : for he contends that those 
who assert that the Tyrrheni and Pelasgi were the same people 
are mistaken, and that the Tyrrheni could not be colonists from Lydia, 
because they differed from the Lydians in language, customs, and 
religion. He, therefore, considers it most probable that the Tyrrheni 
were an indigenous, and not a foreign people || : but he does not 

* Tiraboschi, Stor. della Let. It., vol. i. p. 2. 
f Herodotus, lib. i. c. 94. 
t Strabo, p. 219. 
§ Plin. Hist. Nat., Jib. iii. c.5. 

Virgil was also of the same opinion, or at least has availed himself of the popular belief 
on the subject, as it appears from these passages in the iEneid : — 

" Ad terrain Hesperiam venies ; ubi Lydius, arva 
Inter opima virum, leni fluit agmine Thybris." Lib. ii. v. 781. 

" Haud procul hinc saxo incolitur fundata vetusto 
Urbis Agyllinae sedes ; ubi Lydia quondam 
Gens, bello praeclara, jugis insedit Etruscis." Lib. viii. v. 478. 

" Turn libera fati 
Classem conscendit jussis gens Lydia Divum, 
Externo commissa duci." Lib. x. v. 154. 

|| Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., lib. i. c. 29, 30. 

" Abbia pur Dionisio dipinto i Tirreni come ora si fa de' Cinesi, per una nazione diversa 
in costumi da tutte le altre : noi dopo il Lami in parte lo crederemo esagerato; in parte 
veridico : ma non percio crederemo originali e senza esempio le usanze di Etruria. Come 



HQ THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 

explain in what manner he was enabled to give, in the age of 
Augustus, so decided a contradiction to the long established opinion 
respecting the origin of the Hetruscans ; and, consequently, his observ- 
ations on this point can be considered as nothing more than 
conjectures that rest on no authority. The ancient writers, at the 
same time, concur in stating that the Pelasgi once occupied part of 
Italy ; but a doubt exists whether these Pelasgi were the same people 
as the Tyrrheni, or not. Strabo describes them as having accompanied 
the Lydians * ; but Pliny distinguishes them, for he states, " Adnec- 
titur septimse in qua Hetruria est ab amne Macra, ipsa mutatis saepe 
nominibus. Umbros inde exegere antiquitus Pelasgi ; hos Lydi, a 
quorum rege Tyrrheni, mox a sacrifico ritu lingua Grsecorum Thusci 
sunt cognominati." f 

But, if I have succeeded in showing that the Pelasgi were a people 
of Asia Minor, and that the Greek language was formerly spoken in 
that country, this difference of opinion respecting the Pelasgi, and 
whether or not they migrated directly from Greece, is immaterial ; 
because their language would, in either case, have been precisely the 
same. If, therefore, the Pelasgi possessed Hetruria at the time when 
the Lydians arrived there, it would seem most probable that, being of 
the same, or of a kindred race, they would, instead of having been 
expelled from the country, have become incorporated with the new 
colonists ; and that, in consequence of the superior power of the 
latter, the Pelasgic name became superseded by that of the Tyrrheni 
or Hetrusci. In which case the ancient language of Hetruria must 



i suoi caratteri differivano a' tempi di Dionisio da quegli delle altre genti ; ma in eta 
phi remote erano stati i caratteri della Grecia ; cosi alcune sue usanze differivano a' tempi 
di Dionisio dal resto de' popoli, ma in altr' eta. erano state in moda nella Grecia, e nell' 
Asia. Piu. che una nazione e superstiziosa, piu e tenace degli usi antichi ; 1' Etrusca 
che in superstizione le vinse tutte, dovea vincerle anche in quest' attaccamento : cosi ella 
differiva dalle altre non perche avesse origine da tutte diversa, come Dionisio vorrebbe ; ma 
perche ella riteneva alquanti costumi, gia smessi e obbliterati da tutte. Alcuni anche ve ne 
saranno stati unici e proprj suoi: ma qual popolo non ebbe i suoi usi ?" — Lanzi, Saggio di 
Lingua Etrusca, vol. ii. p. 129. 

* Strabo, p. 219. 

f Plin. Hist. Nat., lib. iii. c. 5. 



THE LATIN LANGUAGE. -.jl 

have been radically the same as Greek, and if, consequently, any remains 
of that language have been preserved, they ought to exhibit this iden- 
tity in a form the most unquestionable : but, on the contrary, if the 
Eugubian tablets have been correctly deciphered, and if they contain 
an accurate specimen of the Hetrurian tongue, Dionysius Halicar- 
nasseus was correct in asserting that it bears no affinity to any other 
language. 

Of these tablets Gorius gives the following account * : — " Monumen- 
torum omnium, quotquot exstant ad hoc tempus, iEgyptiis exceptis, 
antiquissimae sunt aheneae tabulae Eugubinae, dubio etiam procul 
genuinas ac sincerae, proindeque toto orbe celeberrimae, quae in 
publico Eugubinorum tabulario nunc diligentissime adservantur. 
Hae sunt septem : duae Pelasgicis f, quinque Etruscis litteris scriptae, 
haud quidem unica, sed diversa manu, diverso etiam stilo ac forma. 
His si addendam existimes illam, perbrevem quidem, votivam tabulam, 
quae incipit lerpirior, editam a Sponio, a qua removendae sunt figurae 
Apollinis et Clatrae, quae eidem inscriptioni Pelasgicae coaevae non sunt, 
sed Trapepya, ab imperito exscriptore addita, censeri debent, ut nuper 
erudite observavit V. C. Hannibal de Abbatibus Oliverius, Patricius 
Pisaurensis, mihi amicissimus, erunt octo : et haec tabula non Eugubii, 
sed Romae exstare dicitur : si vero addendam censes et alteram, a 
reliquis diversam, quae incipit clavernivr, erunt novem j quarum 
quatuor adveteres Pelasgos, quinque ad Etruscos, id literis perspicue 
indicantibus, indubitanter pertinent. 

" Eugubii sive, ut veteres dixere, Iguvii, Umbrorum urbe no- 
bilissima, anno 1444, prope theatrum, in subterranea quadam 
concameratione, hae tabulae insignes inventae sunt. Statim ac fama 
hujus praeclari inventi increbuit, atque inscriptiones innotuere, minim 
quantum in illustranda Etruscorum prisca lingua desudarint illustres 
ingenio et linguarum scientia viri : quot alphabeta in lucem prodierint: 
quot etiam adhuc ubique latitent, praesertim vero in Florentinis biblio- 

* See also Gruteri Corpus Inscriptionum, p. 14-2. 

f By this term Gorius means the Roman letters, as it appears from the contrasted 
Hetrurian and Pelasgic alphabet which he has given. 



112 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 

thecis, quae vidi. Per annos ducentos et octoginta ab eo tempore, 
quo inventae sunt hae tabulae Eugubinae, qua concinnandis alphabetis, 
qua ostendenda Etruscae linguae origine desudatum est: aliis ex 
Hebraico et Chaldaico fonte ; aliis ex Syriaco, et ut volebant, 
Aramaeo j aliis ex Hebraico sive Assyrio ; aliis ex Phcenicio saltern et 
Punico ; singulis pro lubito, quod videbatur, vocum Etruscarum 
etymon deducentibus ac proponentibus, irrito labore : nam quomodo 
legendi essent cbaracteres et inscriptiones, quod erat faciendum, 
nondum nemo monstraverat." * 

But Gorius has been as unsuccessful as his predecessors in pro- 
ducing a satisfactory explanation of these inscriptions ; for, in the one 
that he has interpreted and analysed, I can only discover, out of ninety 
distinct words, these four, frater, pure, tris, and sakre, which bear any 
resemblance to Latin or Greek, or any other language with which I 
am acquainted. Nor does the explanation of Gorius rest on identity 
or similarity of words, but on conjectures that seem to me at variance 
with every principle of philology. " PVRTVVITV, " he observes, 
" vox composita ex duabus : altera PVR, Gr. ^upor, frumentum ; supra 
scriptum est PIR, in vers. 21. quae vocales facile commutantur: altera 
T WITV quasi TVFITV, a t.ktu, pario, gigno, creo : est etiam 
n<p% ut diximus, frumentum. Nostrum belle respondet la portata ; 
nempe segetum et frugum foetus, copiam." It must be obvious that 

* Museum Etruscum, vol. i. p. 47. 

Pignotti, in his Storia di Toscana, vol. i. p. 97., observes, " Finalmente, avendo 
sempre davanti agli occhi la lingua Latina per iscorta, da il Lami una traduzione della stessa 
Tavola Eugubina che il Gori ha interpretata, e da lui chiamata Carmen Orthium lamentabile. 
Chi ama vedere in quanto diverse e lontane strade sieno talora deviati da' loro imaginarj 
sistemi gli antiquarj, legga le due traduzioni : e certo che, quantunque confuse entrambe, si 
cava senso piu netto da quella del Lami, benche quest' illustre letterato, forse accorgendosi 
del comune errore, e di essersi anch' egli smarrito in questo laberinto, e forse deridendo le 
inutili fatiche degli antiquarj, scherza con quei versi dell' Ariosto : 

" ' Varj gli effetti son, ma la pazzia 
E tutt' una pero che gli fa uscire, 
Gli e come una gran selva, ove la via 
Conviene a forza a chi vi va, fallire : 
Chi su, chi giu, chi qua, chi la travia ec' 

" Non si puo adoprare un' imagine piu atta a rappresentare i viaggi ipotetici degli anti- 
quarj per gli oscuri sentieri delle congetture." 



THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 



113 



to compound and decompound the words of any language in this 
manner, requires a most complete acquaintance with its grammar, its 
analogy, and its rules of composition. But nothing is known of the 
Hetrurian, except a few inscriptions which are supposed to belong to 
it, and, consequently, unless the words contained in them were nearly 
identical with those of some other language, all attempts to interpret 
them must be fruitless.* That the letters, however, in which they are 
written, are nearly the same as the Greek and Roman is evident, and 
it must be concluded that these tablets were intended as a record of 
some circumstance ; but it does not hence follow that the language 
in which they are written is that which was spoken by the Hetrurians, 
or, even were it, that its pronunciation is correctly represented by the 
letters, f In this state of uncertainty, therefore, the Eugubian tablets 

* Pignotti, however, observes, " Dopo le fatiche di tanti I' alfabeto del Gori e il piu 
ricevuto : nondimeno il Sig. Ab. Lanzi, che con tanta copia di erudizione ha trattato il 
soggetto, vi ha trovato da fare qualche cambiamento. Questo dotto uomo e d' accordo col 
Gori sulla somiglianza della lingua Etrusca colla Greca e la Latina." — Storia di Toscana, 
vol. i. p. 92. 

Gibbon was also of opinion that, though " the savage dialect of the Eugubine tables has 
exercised, and may still elude, the divination of criticism, the root is undoubtedly Latin of 
the same age and character as the Saliare Carmen, which, in the time of Horace, none 
could understand." — Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol. viii. p. 5. 

f To make myself more clearly understood, it is well known that in Arabic and Persian 
the short vowels are not represented by characters, and that the diacritical points which 
may supply their place are generally omitted in writing ; and, in Sanscrit, the short a is 
inherent in all consonants, and never represented by its character except at the beginning 
of words. 

I had written this remark before I had obtained Lanzi's valuable work, but I am glad to 
find its correctness confirmed by him. For he remarks, " Nell' antica ortografia si tralasciava 
qualche vocale nel mezzo della parola, ed era quella quam syllaba nomine suo exprimit ,■ v. 
gr. IB. pronunziandosi Be ; invece di Lebero (cioe Libero) scrivevano solamente Lebro, come 
nell' ara di Pesaro. Vittorino adduce questi esempj, Bne per bene, Cra per cera, Krus per 

cams, Dcimus per Decimus Spesso anche son popolari accorciamenti come poclum, 

vinclum, ove non si supplisce 1' ausiliare, ma diversa lettera." — Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, 
vol. i. p. 118. 

In another place, vol. ii. p. 21., he further observes, " Riferita V iscrizione, la leggo ove 
pu6 esservi ambiguita ; aggiugnendo a ogni consonante la sua ausiliare come si usa in lingue 
orientali, o la sua finale. Noi veramente non possiam sapere quali massime in cio avessero 
gli Etruschi." In which case it must be evident, that the deciphering of the Eugubian 
tablets proceeds on grounds much too uncertain to admit of the result being received 
without caution and reservation. 

Q 



H4 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 

cannot be considered as in the least invalidating the testimony to the 
origin of the Latin language, which is afforded by probability, by its 
own internal evidence, and by the accounts of ancient writers. 

I observe that it is a disputed point, whether the Hetrurians received 
the arts from the Greeks or not; and the clear and just point of view 
in which Pignotti has placed the question, applies so particularly to 
the subject of this and the preceding chapter, that the reader will 
perhaps be pleased with my quoting his remarks : — " E inutile pertanto 
il perder tempo a investigare da qual altro popolo gli Etruschi abbiano 
apprese le belle arti. Nulla vi e di sicuro tralle tenebre dell' antichita, 
onde abbiamo tutto il dritto di supporre che siano nate, e cresciute in 
Etruria, come lo furono in India, in Egitto. Che i Greci nelP antiche 
emigrazioni in Etruria vi abbiano portate le belle arti, come ha creduto 
Winckelmann, e non solo incerto, ma probabilmente falso, giacche 
1' epoca della gloria dell' arti Greche essendo posteriore a quelladell' 
Etrusche, sara difficile il dimostrare che i Greci coloni di quei tempi 
fossero piii culti dei loro contemporanei Etruschi. Ma scorriamo varie 
epoche dell' antica Grecia, dalle quali si possa dedurre, se in questo 
paese si coltivassero le arti nei tempi, ne quali fiorivano in Etruria. 
Nella prima sua epoca, di cui esiste memoria, dominata dai feroci 
Pelasgi, e dai rozzi Elleni, niuna idea ebbe d' arti imitative. Suc- 
cessero i tempi eroici ; e la nave Argo tanto celebrata non condusse 
probabilmente che dei corsari, che andavano in Colco a rapire 1' oro 
che si estraeva dall' arene del fin me Fasi. Successe la guerra de' sette 
Eroi contro Tebe, e final mente la celebre guerra Trojana. Per tutti 
questi tempi, non si ha il piu piccolo indizio che fossero coltivate le 
belle arti in Grecia, ma solo la poesia, che fra le nazioni anche le piu 
rozze e stata compagna degli eroi e dei guerrieri. Dopo la ruina di 
Troja, i principi ch' erano stati tanti anni assenti dai loro dominj, li 
ritrovarono tutti sconvolti, pronti a sollevarsi; onde turbata la pace 
domestica, ne seguirono fierissime guerre civili, che desolarono quel 
paese per circa quattro secoli, eloquentemente descritte da Tucidide. 
II quattro secolo dopo la ruina di Troja coincide coll' origine di Roma, 
tempo in cui gli industri Toscani, le di cui citta erano floridissime 



THE LATIN LANGUAGE. U5 

e godevano una tranquilla pace, dipingevano, e gettavano maraviglio- 
samente il bronzo ; giacche ci attesta Plinio, che le pitture di xlrdea 
e di Lanuvio erano anteriori a Roma, e che il carro trionfale di 
Romolo fu gettato in bronzo dagli Etruschi artefici." * 

The preceding remarks will, perhaps, have shown that it was not to 
Greece, but to Asia Minor, that Hetruria was indebted for her prin- 
cipal people, her language, and her arts. The last, no doubt, acquired 
in their new country greater perfection ; for Asia seems to have never 
made any considerable progress in the cultivation of the fine arts : 
but it appears equally evident that the Hetrurians cannot have held 
in esteem either literature or poetry ; since, had this been the case 
imperial Rome would unquestionably have appropriated to her own 
use the literary riches of Hetruria, in the same manner as she has 
adorned herself with the spoils of Greece. No Homer, however, arose 
in Hetruria to immortalise the glory of his country, nor a single man 
of genius to please and instruct the world. It is to this cause that the 
Hetrurians must attribute the loss of their ancient fame : for, though 
poesy may be the companion of heroes and warriors even among the 
rudest people, still it and prose alone can transmit to posterity a know- 
ledge of former events ; and a single book of Homer presents more in- 
formation respecting the men and the times that he has celebrated, than 
can ever be elicited from all the paintings and sculptures of Hetruria. 
The philologist, in particular, has just reason to complain of this neglect 
of literature, because it opposes an almost invincible obstacle to his 
researches into the origin and progress of that language which was 
spoken by the masters of the world : for the first work composed in 
Latin must have been written a thousand years after Tyrrhenus, 
Evander, and iEneas had led their colonies into Italy ; and thus all 
conclusions respecting the formation of this language can be deduced 
only from its own internal evidence, and from the affinity which it 
bears to other languages. 

But, if Hetruria and Latium were peopled by colonies from Asia 
Minor, or by Pelasgi from Greece, it would necessarily follow that the 

* Pignotti, Storia di Toscana, vol. i. p. 117. 
Q 2 



1X6 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 

Hetrurian and Latin languages were originally the same. Lanzi, also 
observes, " Vi e stato chi ha asserito che le altre lingue sien quasi 
altrettanti dialetti della Etrusca ; non eccettuandone la stessa lingua 
Latina ; e ne da per fondamento si la potenza di questa nazione, si la 
dottrina. Gli Etruschi signoreggiarono una volta quasi per tutta Italia, 
se crediamo a Servio o a qualunque sia de' Grammatici, da cui egli 
trasse quella nota in Tuscorum jure pcene omnis Italia fuerat. Per- 
duto questo, tenner tuttavia il primato nelle scienze : da essi Roma, 
non che altro popolo, era istruita nelle divine lettere e nelle umane. 
Or chi non sa che un popolo bellicoso distendendo 1' impero distende 
il linguaggio ; e che un popol dotto, insegnando e scrivendo, 
comunica ai forestieri insieme con le sue cognizioni anche i suoi 
vocaboli?" Lanzi, however, adds, " Nondimeno io non so recarmi a 
credere, che quegli altri dialetti abbian origine dall' Etrusco, ancorche 
vi abbiano somiglianza. Qualunque fosse 1' antica patria de' Tirreni, 
di che tanto si e questionato, e tuttavia ne restiamo incerti, questo 
almeno pud assicurarsi, ch' essi non sono il piu antico popolo d'ltalia." * 
But, when the question is not respecting the derivation of the other 
dialects of Italy from the Hetruscan language, but merely respecting 
their affinity with it, the objections of Lanzi to the former do not 
apply to the latter. He admits, at the same time, that traces of 
Greek and Latin are to be found in the Hetruscan, and he observes, 
" Che se Greci son questi nomi, il Greco dunque s' insinuo presto in 
questa lingua : col Greco dunque potra indagarsi piu facilmente, che 
con altro piu remoto idioma. Se poi consideriamo i nomi de' luoghi, 
o delle persone e delle famiglie, troveremo, pressoche tutte esser voci 
comuni a' Romani e agli Etruschi ; e con poche variazioni ridursi ¥ un 
dialetto all' altro. Che se Latini sono nella parola ; nelle desinenza 
spesso son nomi Greci ; onde ravvisare in essi il concorso delle due 
favelle." f This last circumstance, in particular, must tend strongly 
to prove that the Latin is not derived from the Greek, and to confirm 
the supposition that these are merely cognate languages, and that 

* Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p 16, 17. 
f Ibid. p. 41. 



THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 127 

both are derived from that primitive tongue which was spoken at some 
remote period in Asia Minor. 

Lanzi further remarks, " Aggiungasi che la letteratura de' Romani 
ne' primi secoli di Roma era studiar la lingua e le scienze Etrusche, 
come poi le Greche : ed e natural cosa ch' Etruscizzassero allora quei 
che sapevano, quanto Grecizzarono di poi ; quindi certe iscrizioni 
hella seconda Tavola, che pajono Etrusche piu che Romane." * I 
avail myself, also, of the following clear and concise remarks of Lanzi, 
for the purpose of stating the opinion which is generally entertained 
respecting the origin of the Latin language : — " Or essendo V Italia 
da ogni lato plena di Greci, conchiude il Sig. Olivieri, dopo simil' 
enumerazione, chi mai creder potra che altra lingua si usasse in Italia 
fuor che la Greca; o se cid par troppo, piu che la Greca? Per altro 
dovea questa favella esser varia, perche discesa da varj luoghi ; scorretta, 
perche serbata tra '1 volgo ; alterata, perche mista de' vocaboli primitivi 
d' Italia; se deon' ammettersi altri progenitori fuor di quegli nominati 
da Servio ; ma nondimeno Greca nel suo fondo, e in gran parte de' 
suoi vocaboli. La lingua Latina, e la Greca, mille anni e poco piu 
innanzi Augusto, non erano che due dialetti di uno stesso idioma, dice 
il prefato Olivieri. La Etrusca stessa (non che le altre) non e che 
una derivazione della Greca, come par che insinui Bochart, come 
affirma Chisull, come accennano Bourguet et Gori, anzi in qualche luogo 
dell' opera Lami stesso : ne forse per altra ragione due dialetti laterali 
egli appella 1' Etrusco, e il Latino." -f 

But, notwithstanding this generally received opinion, it seems much 
more probable that Latin was derived from the same country to 

* Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 45. 

To the original identity of the Hetruscan and Latin, it may be objected, that their dis- 
similarity in later times disproves their common origin ; for Livy, lib. ix. c. 36., in relating 
the events of the year 308 B. C, remarks, — " Caere educatus [M. Fabius] apud hospites, 
Etruscis inde Uteris eruditus erat, linguamque Etruscam probe noverat. Habeo auctores, 
vulgo turn Romanos pueros, sicut nunc Graecis, ita Etruscis Uteris erudiri solitos." But this 
dissimilarity may have been dialectic only, such as now exists among the Teutonic dialects, 
and, consequently, does not disprove the derivation of the Hetruscan and Latin from a 
common origin. 

f Ibid. p. 28, 29. 



1[§ THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 

which Greece herself was indebted for her language : for, as ancient 
history attests that Pelasgi, Lydian, and Trojan colonies, far more 
numerous and powerful than the Arcadian, migrated into Italy, and 
that subsequent to these migrations no Grecian colonies settled in 
Hetruria or Latium, it becomes impossible to understand in what 
manner the dialects of the Hetrurians and Latins could acquire any 
affinity to Greek, unless the languages of Asia Minor and Greece 
were originally the same. The difficulties, also, under which learned 
men have laboured in attempting to explain the cause of this affinity, 
must alone render their opinions extremely questionable ; since, 
being obliged to admit this affinity and at the same time the great 
difference which exists between Greek and Latin, they substitute a 
mere name for an explanation, and ascribe both the difference and the 
affinity to the Latin having been derived from the iEolic dialect of 
the Greek. But, before this alleged cause can be admitted, it must 
be proved that iEolian colonies were established in Hetruria and 
Latium, by means of which this dialect was communicated to their 
inhabitants, and on this material point all ancient writers are decidedly 
silent.* The affinity, therefore, between the Greek and Latin being- 
undisputed, it would certainly seem most probable that these lan- 
guages were originally the same, and that the difference now existing 
between them has proceeded from long separation, and from the 
Greeks having preserved the parent tongue more pure and less 
subject to alteration than the Romans. The language, also, of Asia 
Minor may not have acquired, at the time of the Pelasgic and Lydian 
migrations into Italy, that degree of excellence which Plato admired 
in the poems of Orpheus ; and, in the works of Homer and preceding- 
poets, the Greeks possessed, at a very early period, a fixed standard 
for their language. Greece, at the same time, seems to have been, 
from the Trojan war, occupied solely by the people who have become 
so celebrated under the name of Greeks, and, consequently, no essential 

* I am aware that the Arcadian dialect is supposed to be the same as the iEolic ; but it 
clearly appears that it could not be the Arcadian colonies who communicated their language 
to Hetruria and Latium. 



THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 



119 



change could occur in their language. But Italy was very differently 
situated, for there no poets arose to preserve the language of their 
country; and, though the exact state of its original inhabitants, or the 
foreign accessions which they may have received subsequent to the 
migrations from Asia Minor, are unknown, it is still obviousthat the 
language of these colonists must have been greatly affected by such 
an intermixture. 

It deserves, also, to be particularly remarked, that the existing dif- 
ference between Greek and Latin demonstrates, on the soundest 
principles of philology, that the latter was not derived from the former, 
but that both languages were originally the same ; for they differ 
principally in words, and bear the closest affinity to each other in their 
grammatical structure. But no argument can be necessary to show 
that the latter is such an essential and immutable part of language, 
that, however words may become obsolete or new ones may be 
formed or adopted, still, under all such changes, whether in the native 
or in a foreign country, the grammatical structure remains almost 
entirely unaffected ; because the vitality of this principle is fully ex- 
emplified in the alterations which Latin itself has been subjected to, in 
order to accommodate it to the scanty system of grammatical inflection 
which characterises the Gothic languages. Words for objects before 
unknown the conquerors received from the conquered, but cases, tenses, 
and moods they disdained. The one might with a little attention be 
remembered, but the other could not be acquired without submitting 
to painful tuition. The grammatical structure, however, of the Latin 
has suffered changes, as it evidently appears from the irregularities of 
some parts of its grammar : but this circumstance was the necessary 
effect of the intermixture of the colonists from Asia Minor with the 
prior inhabitants of Italy, and, particularly, of the language having 
remained, for perhaps a thousand years, merely a spoken tongue, with- 
out being cultivated or employed in literary composition ; for experience 
shows that, until a language has been fixed by its general employment 
in writing, it is always subject to the greatest fluctuation. 



120 THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 

It will, at the same time, appear, from the second part of this work, 
that there are 208 Sanscrit words in Greek which are not to be found 
in Latin, and 188 in Latin which exist not in Greek.* Different 
conclusions may, perhaps, be drawn from this circumstance ; and the 
maintainers of the Greek origin of the Latin may observe, in the 
words of Horace, — 

" Ut silvae foliis pronos mutantur in annos, 
Prima cadunt; ita verborum vetus interit a?tas, 
Et juvenum ritu florent modo nata, vigentque." 

But, as these Latin words have corresponding terms in Greek, and as 
the genius of Greek is averse to synonymes, it must appear extremely 
improbable that, at the time of the Arcadian migrations into Italy, 
two synonymous words should have existed in Greek, the one of which 
has been preserved by the Romans, and the other by the Greeks ; and 
utterly impossible that the latter should have given up a term in 
common use, in order to invent a new one. These, however, are the 
only means by which the existence of Sanscrit words in Latin, which 
are unknown to Greek, can be explained, had these words ever com- 
posed part of the Greek language, after it acquired its present form. 
Their improbability, if not impossibility, consequently, demonstrates 
that these words actually belonged to that language which was originally 
spoken by the progenitors of the Greek and Latin people. To evince 
that this conclusion is well founded, the slightest inspection of these 
words in the second part will be sufficient ; for they consist of all the 
different parts of speech, and are applicable to such a variety of objects 
and ideas, as to prove incontrovertibly that had they ever existed in 
Greek, as polished and refined in the time of Homer, they would still 

* What, also, is the precise number of words common to Greek and Latin? This is a 
point which I have not been able to ascertain satisfactorily ; but, as in the 2200 roots given 
by MM. du Port Royal, there are 183 words only common to both these languages, it 
may be concluded that there are more Sanscrit than Greek words in Latin. As, likewise, 
of these 183 words, 130 are Sanscrit; these circumstances must tend strongly to prove that 
it is from Sanscrit, and not from Greek, that Latin is derived. 



THE LATIN LANGUAGE. 



121 



be found in that language. * Their non-existence in it, therefore, 
and their perfect identity with the words of another language which 
contains many terms both Greek and Latin, must be considered as 
conclusive proofs that the generally received opinion, that Latin is 
derived from Greek, rests on no sufficient foundation. 

* " Vi sono in oltre nel Latino delle vochi che nel cognito Greco non si rintracciano ; 
ond' e che Vossio ne cerco etimologia nell' Ebraico, altri nel Celtico, altri nell' Ibero. Di 
tali voci dico io doversi almen dubitare che fossero nell' antichissimo Greco. Noi lo 

possiamo distinguere in pristino Ellenico, ed in Pelasgico Egli non ci fa a dire qual 

proporzione avesse all' Ellenico, se come lingua a lingua, se come dialetto piu antico o piu 
[meno ?] misto a piu moderno e piu schietto ; congettura che posse barbaro, ma non F 
assevera ; conclude che avanzi ancora ne rimanevano in Tracia e in Italia, ove dicemmo 

che influi nelle nostre favelle; anche in quella della nascente Roma Ma poiche Erodoto 

pel Pelasgico, Varrone ed altri per 1' antico Ellenico ci additan 1' Italia; per tracciarli 
cerchiamone in essa e in Roma. Ne 1' uno ne 1' altro puo restringersi al Greco cognito, che 
troviam nel Latino; adunque deon essere in quel Latino, la cui origine meno e cognita." — 
Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 448, 449. 

To a certain extent, these conjectures of Lanzi will be found verified in a singular manner 
by the result of these Researches. 



122 



CHAP. IX.* 

ON THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 

An apparently valid objection to the identification of Greek and Latin 
with the language which was anciently spoken in Asia Minor, but 
which has now become extinct, except so far as undeniable proofs of 
its existence have been preserved, in Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, may 
perhaps arise from a supposed dissimilarity in their alphabetical 
systems. To obviate, therefore, this objection, it becomes indispensable 
to enter into an examination of that obscurest and most contested of 
all subjects, the origin of alphabetical characters. But it seems that 
the generally received opinion attributes their origin to Phenicia, and 
their communication to other nations to Cadmus or the Pelasgi. In 
the search after truth, however, I may be permitted to profess myself 

" Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri ; " 

and to consider myself at liberty to reject the opinions of learned men, 
if they be inconsistent with the plainest principles of common sense 
and sound reasoning. For how is it possible to acquiesce in the correct- 
ness of such an account as this ? — " The Pelasgi were of Phenician 
original : we learn from Sanchoniatho, that the sons of the Dioscuri 
and Cabiri wrote the first annals of Phenician history by the command 
of Taaut, the first inventor of letters. These men made ships of 
burden, and being cast upon the coast about forty miles from Pelusium 
they built a temple ; this event happened in the second generation 
after the deluge recorded by Moses. These Phenicians were called 
Pelasgi, from their passing by sea, and wandering from one country to 
another." f I prefer rather to adopt the opinion of Cour de Gebelin : 

* For the illustration of the remarks contained in this Chapter, see Plates A No. 1., 
A No. 2., B No. 1., B No. 2., C, D No. 1., D No. 2., D No. 3. 
f Astle's Origin and Progress of Writing, p. 52. 



GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. J23 

— " Tels sont," says he, " a peu pres les divers systemes qu'on a proposes 
jusques ici sur les terns et sur les lieux ou parut l'ecriture pour la pre- 
miere fois, et sur les objets qui servirent de modele a son inventeur. 
On voit que ces systemes, semblables aux heros de Cadmus, se combat- 
tent et s'entre-detruisirent tous ; et qu'apres les avoir tous lus, on retombe 
dans les tenebres dont on esperoit sortir par leur moyen. Faudra-t-il 
done abandonner tous ces guides, et renoncer a avoir des idees plus 
nettes, plus precises, plus exactes sur un objet aussi interessant et aussi 
etroitement lie avec l'Histoire de la Parole ? Mais, dira-t-on, comment, 
etre plus heureux ? En n'imaginant point de systeme ; en reunissant 
tous les mormmens, tous les faits, en les comparant, en se rendant 
attentif a tout ce qu'ils nous apprennent ; en evitant les meprises de 
ceux qui nous ont precedes, et qui ont presque toujours pris un champ 
beau co up trop resserre."* 

The opinion, at the same time, of ancient writers, that letters derived 
their origin from Phenicia, seems to rest entirely on the authority of 
Herodotus. But Herodotus invalidates his own account, by adding, — 

npuTct pev roiCTi xai aTTavTiq xpuvTcci <f>oiviKe$* [astcc os, %pci/ou irpoQouvovTog, a,{A,CC 
Ty <puvv\ f/,£Tt£u?iOv H.a,i tov pvQpov rcov y^ot-fAfjMTuv^ ; and further, loov ae xoci uVTog 
Kafyrjia. yaoctApon a. ev tu tpw tov ATtoXXwvog tov Io~prjviov ev Qrj&ricri th\<ti Boiutcov, 
stti T^nrcKri tio~i Byx.ex.oXa \ipiv a , tu 7roXXa opoiot eovToc. toicti loviiconrt. £ For, 
if, at the time when Herodotus lived, the supposed Cadmean letters 
greatly resembled the Ionian, either the latter had not materially 
changed their forms and sounds, as first stated, or the former could 
not have been the same as the Phenician ; because it cannot be 
denied that, 450 years before Christ, the Greek and Phenician alpha- 
bets were radically dissimilar. § As, therefore, the reason assigned by 
Herodotus for denominating the ancient letters of Greece Cadmean is 
inconsistent in itself, and as he merely says, Ovx. eowa [tu ypuppuTot] 

* Monde Primitif, vol. iii. p. 398. 

f Herod., lib. v. c. 58. t Ibid - P- 59 - 

§ " The Ionian letters on the medals and other monuments of his [Herodotus's] age 

now extant, are evidently very different from the Phenician." — Knight's Analysis of the 

Greek Alphabet, p. 120. 

R 2 



224 0N THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT 

#p*v 'Exx*?<n, 'flS EMOI AOKEEIN, it may be concluded that alphabetical 
characters had been known in Greece previous to the arrival of 
Cadmus ; in which case there is no conceivable cause which could 
have induced the people to give up their own letters, and to adopt 
those of a stranger. 

Were, however, this account of Herodotus admitted, it would only 
be explaining obscurum per obscurius ; for neither he nor any other 
ancient writer explains the form, sound, and order of the Phenician 
letters ; and without this indispensable information it is impossible to 
form any opinion respecting their resemblance to the Greek. But the 
authors of the Ancient Universal History remark, that " the language of 
the Phenicians was a dialect of the Hebrew, the same with that of the 
ancient Canaanites. Their letters were either the same with, or very 
like to, those of the ancient Samaritans."* Bochart, also, is of the 
same opinion ; for he observes, — " Denique res ipsa docet literas e 
Phoenicia in Grasciam allatas. Primo si figuram spectes, Graecae literas, 
maxime antiquiores illae, quarum exempla in Eusebianis profert doc- 
tissimus Scaliger, vetustis Phcenicum literis, quibus hodie utuntur 
Samaritani, in plerisque tarn sunt similes, ut nemini non pateat illas ex 
his esse expressas." f But his identification of the Phenician or 
Samaritan alphabet with the Greek is inadmissible ; because, if the 
authority of ancient writers is considered sufficient to establish the 
Phenician origin of letters, its validity to prove that the ancient Greek 
alphabet consisted of sixteen or eighteen letters only ought equally to 
be admitted. Bochart, however, is obliged in order to effect this 
identification, to employ not only four of the letters which were 
subsequently added to the Greek alphabet, but also the episemons, 
bau, koppa, and sanpi, the existence of which as letters has never been 
proved X ; while, on the contrary, he rejects both the upsilon and the 
digamma, the existence of which cannot be disputed. His failure, 
therefore, is sufficient to disprove the fancied identity of the Phenician 

* Anc. Un. Hist., vol. ii. p. 20. f Boch. Cha., lib. i. c. 20. 

$ They are not noticed in Mr. Payne Knight's Analysis of the Greek Alphabet. 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 125 

and Greek alphabets, if the Samaritan is considered to be the same 
as the former. 

Apparently aware of this difficulty, other writers assume that the 
Phenician alphabet consisted of sixteen letters only. Astle even 
asserts that they were no more than thirteen in number.* But on 
what authority these suppositions were founded, I have not been able 
to ascertain ; for, on referring to the Phenician alphabets annexed to 
the Memoire of M. Barthelemy on this subject, I find that No. 1. 
consists of eighteen letters, No. 2. of twelve, and No, 3. of nineteen. f 
It will, however, be admitted, that the collecting the letters of any 
language from inscriptions and medals, is a method much too un- 
certain to determine the number of letters of which its alphabet might 
be composed ; and this variation in the number, resulting from an 
examination of inscriptions and medals collected in three different 
places, must render the completeness of these alphabets very doubtful. J 
That all three must be incomplete is evident from there being no 
character to represent p, or a substitute for this letter ; a deficiency 
that does not exist in any known language. § From this circumstance 
it might be much more justly concluded that, on a further examination 
of Phenician inscriptions and medals, all the twenty-two letters of the 
Samaritan and Hebrew alphabets would be found, than that the 
Phenician alphabet itself consisted of thirteen or sixteen letters only. 

It is further contended that, as the ancient Greek letters were 
written from right to left, and as the Samaritan have been always 
written in this manner, it must follow that the former were derived 
from the latter. Bat it is incorrect to argue from the present day 
to a remote period of antiquity ; for, in ancient times, Phenicia and 

* Origin and Progress of Writing, p. 50. 

f Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc, vol. xxx. p. 425. 

The Phenician alphabet given by Cour de Gebelin, in Plate VI. of Monde Primitif, 
vol iii., does not correspond in any respect with the alphabets published by the Academy. 

X The Phenician alphabet taken from a marble at Oxford, and inserted in the first plate 
of Astle's Origin and Progress of Writing, consists of fifteen letters; and that given by 
Dutens, in his Explication des quelques Me"dailles Grecques et Pheniciennes, of nineteen. 

5 The Arabs have no p, but they have an^ 



126 0N THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT 

Samaria were not the principal nations of Asia, and it cannot be 
supposed that the knowledge of letters was confined to these incon- 
siderable and unfrequented countries. Until, therefore, it be proved 
that 1600 years B. C. no other people in Asia, except the Phenicians, 
wrote from right to left, it is evident that no just conclusion can be 
drawn from this peculiarity. But there is one circumstance that 
seems to be entirely overlooked, which is of itself alone sufficient to 
disprove the Phenician origin of the Greek letters ; for Mr. Payne 
Knight remarks that " None of the ancient oriental alphabets had 
any vowels*, except the Phenician, and that had properly only two, 
the aleph and the ain, signifying (as I am inclined to think) merely 
the different degrees of aperture the mouth required to pronounce the 
words represented by the consonants. The Greeks, even in the very 
earliest stage to which their alphabet can be traced, had five ; all which 
(except the alpha borrowed from the Phenicians) appear to be their 
own invention." f But can any thing be more improbable, than that 
the same people who could invent characters for four vowels should 
find it necessary to receive one from strangers, and that vowel the 
very one which is the easiest and most frequent of utterance ? If, 
however, the Greeks invented any part of their alphabetical characters, 
or rather if they were brought into Greece by the Pelasgi, it seems 
most probable that the whole was also derived from the same origin ; 
and this conclusion is much too consonant with reason, to be in the 
least invalidated by the fancied resemblance which is supposed to exist 
between some of the Phenician J and Greek letters. 

The opinion of Pliny, therefore, seems most probable ; for he 

* This remark ought to be restricted to the alphabets of Phenicia, Palestine, and Syria ; 
because it is not known whether the alphabet of ancient Persia had vowels or not, and the 
alphabets of India have not only vowels, but characters for the long and short sounds of 
a, e, i, and u. 

\ Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 16, 17. 

\ I use this term in compliance with common usage, but it seems to me that the very 
existence of ancient Phenician letters remains still to be proved ; for, hitherto, this 
important fact appears to have been merely assumed, and never established by any evidence 
whatever. 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 127 

observes, — " Literas semper arbitror Assyrias fuisse * ; sed alii apud 
Egyptos a Mercurio, ut Gellius ; aliique apud Syros repertas volunt. 
Utique in Grseciam intulisse e Phoenice Cadmum sedecim numero. 
Quibus Trojano bello Palamedem adjecisse quatuor hac figura, 9, |, q>, %. 
Totidem post eum Simonidem melicum, £, y, ty f u ; quarum omnium 
vis in nostris recognoscitur. Aristoteles x et viii priscas fuisse a, 
£» y-> $t e i & h *•> *•» f-i v > °i ^j f » ^5 T » v i § ; et duas ab Epicharmo additas, 
6, x* qnam a Palamede mavult. Anticlides in Egypto invenisse 
quendam nomine Menona tradit xv annis ante Phoroneum antiquis- 
simum Graecias regem ; idque monumentis approbare conatur, E 
diverso Epigenes, apud Babylonios dccxx annorum observationes 
siderum coctilibus laterculis inscriptas docet, gravis autor in primis ; 
qui minimum, Berosus et Critodemus, cccclxxx annorum. Ex quo 
apparet aeternus literarum usus. In Latium eas attulerunt Pelasgi." f 
In support of this last observation, the Eugubian Tablets afford the 
strongest evidence ; for, whatever difference of opinion may exist 
with respect to the language in which they are written, there can be 
no doubt that the characters are nearly identical with the ancient 
Greek letters. Mr. Payne Knight, also, remarks, that " These are 
probably the original Pelasgian letters, as first brought into Italy j 
for, without admitting the conjecture of Gori, that this inscription 
was engraved two generations before the Trojan war, we may safely 

* The following words of Diodorus Siculus are generally applied to the inhabitants of 
Syria, in its most restricted sense : — ITpoj 8s tov; XeyovTtxg, oti Tvpoi pev euperai twv ypotp- 
jaaTWv s«r», mapa. 8s tov toov <i>oivixsg paQovTe; tojj 'EAA»)<ri irupudsdwx.oio-w. But Strabo observes, 
p. 737. j — Aottc* 8s twv "^vpiwv ovo[/.oc 8<aTsii/«i, utto f/.ev tijj BaSv\ovixg /xsp£p< tov lao'txov xoXttov. 
octto 8s tovtou ^x? 1 T0U Eu£s<vou tottuXohov. On this passage M. Gosselin, in the French 
translation, remarks, — " Les Grecs donnoient aux Assyriens le nom de Syriens, et desig- 
noient par le mot Syrie le pays compris entre la Mediterranee et le Tigre ; aussi les anciens 
auteui's emploient a chaque instant Supia dans le sens de Ao-<rupi«. Dans iEschile ~2.vpwv 
apfjiu. est pour Ao-o-vpioov ap^u, comme dit le scholiaste." The authority, therefore, of 
Eusebius, who says, Praef. Evan., lib. x. c. 5., E«j-i 8= ol Supouj ypx/jifLccTa e7r»vorj(r«( Asyoucn 
■npooTOv;. 2opo» 8'«v eisv xcti E§p«»oi, T>]i/ yenovcc ( l>oivix.Yis, x«j a.VTy\v to ju.sv ttuXcuov 'I'oivixijv, 
fx.sT' s7tsjt« 8s lou8ai«v, xctQ' rjju.aj 8s YIct\unrTiVY)v ovoputyixevyv, oikovvts;, cannot be considered 
as sufficient for determining that the words of Diodorus Siculus ought to be restricted 
to the inhabitants of Palestine. 

f Plin. Nat. Hist., lib. vii. c. .56. 



128 0N THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT 

allow it to be more ancient than any other written monument ex- 
tant. * Whether," adds Mr. Knight, " these ancient nations received 

their letters from the Phoenicians at a period anterior to the expedition 
of Cadmus, or whether both the Phoenicians and Pelasgi received 
them from the Assyrians, or from some people still more ancient, 
it is impossible to conjecture." f But, as it seems indisputable that 
the Pelasgi were originally settled in Asia Minor, it must appear 
highly probable that this country derived a knowledge of letters, as 
Pliny and perhaps Diodorus Siculus thought, from Assyria or Baby- 
lonia ; and thus the invention of letters would belong to that part of 
the world in which the first known empire flourished, and in which, 
as I conceive, was the original seat of the Sanscrit language and 
of the Sanscrit literature. 

But, in the discussion of this question, had the sounds and not 
the forms of the letters been attended to, it would, perhaps, have 
at once appeared that the alphabetical systems of the Greeks and 
Phenicians were too dissimilar, to admit of its being justly concluded 
that the former was derived from the latter. For, though the proper 
pronunciation of the Samaritan letters, which are supposed to be 
the same as the Phenician, is uncertain, still there seems no doubt 
but that he, vau, jod, and gnain were not vowels, and therefore had 
no corresponding sounds in the Greek alphabet. That either teth 
or tau, also, tsadi, koph, and shin were sounds unknown to the Greeks 
cannot be disputed ; and, judging from the Arabic alphabet, it might 
be concluded that pe ought to be sounded as the Arabic fa, a letter 
which a Greek, as Cicero asserts, coul dnot pronounce. The zain 
likewise, if equivalent to zeta, and cheth did not originally belong 
to the Greek alphabet. Thus eleven sounds out of twenty-two could 
not have been communicated to the Greeks, had Cadmus introduced 
the Phenician letters into Greece ; while, on the contrary, the 
Greeks must have invented, or rather received from the Pelasgi, the 
vowels epsilon, iota, omicron, and upsilon, and afterwards increased 

* Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 120. t Ibid. p. 121. 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. jgg 

their alphabet by eight additional letters. It is totally impossible, 
therefore, to discover such a similarity in these alphabets, as to render 
it in the least probable that the Greek alphabetical system of sounds 
could ever have been derived from the Phenician. 

It is, however, difficult to form an opinion respecting the antiquity 
of the Sanscrit alphabet ; for it seems much too artificial to admit 
of its being supposed that it is original and unimproved. Mr. Payne 
Knight remarks, — " Whether that alphabet be original, like the lan- 
guage, I very much doubt, as both the forms and number of the 
letters seem to imply that it is made up from the spoils of others." * 
But several people of India speak vernacular dialects, far inferior to 
the Sanscrit in copiousness and refinement ; and yet some of their 
peculiar alphabets consist of more letters than the Deva Nagari. f 
The sounds, also, of the last-mentioned alphabet are common to all 
the people of India, and the proper pronunciation of several of them 
is perfectly unattainable by a foreigner. On considering this circum- 
stance, I am much inclined to think that the Brahmans, when they 
migrated into India, gradually adapted their alphabet and their 
writings to the sounds which they there found in common use ; for, 
on judging of this point, it must never be forgotten that there is no 
proof whatever that Sanscrit was the universal language of India, 
as I shall perhaps satisfactorily evince in the twelfth chapter. This 
language, therefore, was confined to a numerous priesthood, who were 
at perfect liberty to give it whatever form they chose. Nor, though 
all the Deva Nagari letters are at present indispensable for the ortho- 
graphy of Sanscrit, does this seem to have been an absolute requisite 
in the original formation of the language, as will clearly appear 
from an examination of the Comparative Table in Part II. : because 
half of the Sanscrit letters are merely characters for modifications 
of the same sound ; and experience sufficiently shows that this is 

* Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 16. note. 

f The Malabar, for instance, has three r's and two 1% and, besides, distinct characters for 
representing a final r and I. 

S 



130 ON THE GREEK, HEBREW, AND SANSCRIT 

a degree of nicety which the alphabets of few people have yet 
attained. * 

The Pelasgic alphabet, therefore, may not improbably exhibit the 
first elements of the Sanscrit. For, if the modifications of sound 
which are now represented by Sanscrit letters existed when this 
language was first formed, characters for them might not have been 
invented ; and thus among the colonies who migrated from Babylonia 
these delicate intonations might have fallen into disuse: or, on the 
supposition just stated, these modifications may have been a com- 
paratively modern improvement, introduced into the original language 
by the Brahmans after their arrival in India. Rejecting, therefore, 
these nice distinctions of sound, the proper pronunciation of which 
could only be acquired by being accustomed to it from infancy, it will 
be observed that the Greek and Latin alphabets agree with the 
Sanscrit, in possessing distinct characters for the essential vowels 
a, e, i, o, u. If, also, it be admitted that i was sometimes pronounced 
as ?/, and the spiritus asper as h, it will be found that there are four 
Sanscrit sounds only, ch, j, w, and sh, which are not contained in 
the Greek and Latin alphabets ; and one of these, the w, was certainly 
at one time in use among the Greeks, and its sound, though not 
a character for it, was preserved amongst the Romans. Nor does 
the Pelasgic alphabet contain any sounds unknown to the Sanscrit j" ; 
for the 9, <p, and % J, at whatever time received into use, are merely 
aspirations of r, w, and k, and have, therefore, equivalents in the 
Sanscrit alphabet. The Latin, however, contains one sound, f, 

* The alphabets of Europe are a sufficient proof of the correctness of this remark, as all 
of them are deficient in the characters requisite to represent the sounds which prevail 
among the people who use them. 

f I do not, of course, take into account the letters £, £, and \J/ ; because it is admitted 
that these are merely characters for double letters, which are, consequently, resolvable into 
8<r, xcr, and 7ro". 

$ " Nam Grseci adspirare solent <f>, ut, pro Fundanio, Cicero testem, qui primam ejus literam 
dicere non posset, irridet." — Quint. Inst. Or., lib. i. c, 4. Gesner observes, in a note on this 
passage, — " Est enim <I> inventa pro IT et H spiritu aspero. Prise, i. p. 542, Atque hoc 
solum interest (eodem teste, p. 543.) inter J" et ph, quod non tarn Jixis labris est pronuntianda 
f quomodo ph. Hinc intelligitur quid peccaverit testis Graeculus." 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 131 

unknown to the Sanscrit * ; and this last has no distinct character 
for the sound of v, which the w sometimes assumes. But, in all 
essential respects, the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit alphabetical systems 
are similar ; and, whatever opinion may be formed respecting the 
causes which may have produced the difference now observable be- 
tween the Sanscrit and the two former, it must still be admitted that 
they exhibit, even at this day, much more unquestionable evidence 
of a common origin, than any ingenuity can possibly extract from 
a comparison of the Greek and Phenician alphabets. When, also, 
to this similarity is added the remarkable affinity which exists, after 
the lapse of three thousand years, between the Greek, Latin, and 
Sanscrit languages, it must appear most probable that Babylonia 
communicated at the same time both her language and her letters 
to Asia Minor, from whence they were conveyed by the Pelasgi 
to Greece, Latium, and Hetruria. 

But Lanzi observes, — " Or Lipsio nel comentare il citato passo di 
Tacito f , confronta prima gli autori su i quali si fondano queste lettere 
anticadmee ; poi conclude : vides in diversitate sententiarum consentire 
tamen omnes de Egypto et Phcenice. Niuno dunque degli antichi avea 
sospettato mai delF Etruria, ne de' Pelasghi Tirreni ; niun autorita 

adunque favorisce il sistema nuovo almeno palesemente La base 

del sistema Guarnacciano e, che in Grecia furon caratteri avanti 
Cadmo ; parere non nuovo tra' moderni." X Ifj however, I have suc- 
ceeded in showing that the Pelasgi migrated from Asia Minor, and if 
the early civilisation of Western Asia be admitted, and if the con- 
current opinion of ancient writers on this point rests merely on the 
questionable authority of Herodotus, and if no similarity can be 

* I know not what to make of q, respecting which Gesner remarks, — " Literam ludi- 
brium et crucem grammaticorum, non minus atque alteram k dixeris ; " but, in the Sanscrit 
words which have passed into Latin, the qu represents a simple k, or a k conjoined with w, 
kwa, and, perhaps, ch. 

f " Quidam Cecropem Atheniensem, vel Linum Thebanum, sexdecim litterarum formas 
memorant ; et temporibus Trojanis Palamedem Argivum, mox alios, ac praecipuum Simo- 
nidem, ceteras reperisse." — Tacit. Anna!., lib. xi. c. 14. 

% Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 179. 178. 

s 2 



132 ON THE GREEK, HEBREW, AND SANSCRIT 

discovered between the Greek and Phenician alphabets, it must 
necessarily follow that there is no proof whatever, which in the least 
establishes that the Pelasgi were ignorant of letters, and that these 
were first introduced into Greece by Cadmus. 

It may, however, be contended that, if the Pelasgi carried letters into 
Greece, Latium, and Hetruria, the same number of alphabetical 
characters ought to be found in the ancient inscriptions which have 
been discovered in these countries ; but, as this is not the case, con- 
sequently this supposition respecting the Pelasgi cannot be correct. 
But Lanzi justly observes, — " Io credo che non ogni lettera sia da 
cercarsi in lingue poco coltivate e durate poco : ove F alfabeto era 
regolata dalla pronunzia ; come avvenne un tempo nelle varie nazioni 
di Grecia.* Quindi ogni nazione ebbe il suo. L'Osco, la Sannitica, 
1' Umbra pronunziavano il b e V ammisero nella scrittura ; l' Euganea 
ammise 1' o ricusata dalle tre predette perche la pronunziava ; la Volsca 
ammise le altre Latine antiche per la stessa ragione. L' Etrusca, che 
non pronunziava se non poche lettere, e quelle che le mancavano 
suppliva con le loro affini, ebbe fin dalla origine un alfabeto limitato ; e 
non cangiando dipoi pronunzia, non lo carico di nuove lettere : am- 
mise al piule doppie ch e x che accrebbero 1' alfabeto, ma non variarono 
la pronunzia della nazione. Nel resto, benche vicinissima al Lazio, 
escluse sempre 1' o, perche secondo Plinio non proferivala : e per la 
stessa ragione non adotto mai il g ne altra nuova lettera, fosse o non 
fosse Cadmea. f In another place he observes, — " Ma Gori si fondo 
specialmente nelle piu antiche iscrizioni de' Greci. Con esse alia mano 
provo quanta connessione dovessero avere il Greco e 1' Etrusco : giacche 
la forma delle lettere era quasi la stessa. II tempo ha comprovato in 

* " L' alfabeto Greco conto da principio sedici lettere, secondo Plinio. Verisimilmente son 
quelle, che compongono la iscrizione di Milo ; se vi si aggiunga il B, che non vi fu occasione 
di adoperarvelo. Quei che ne contarono diciotto, forse vi computarono le aspirazioni H 
e F. Alcuni v' includono la X e n' escludono la V, come Vittorino Grammatico. E vera- 
mente in una delle iscrizioni Amiclee la figura dell' V non si discerne dalF O. Io non 
deggio fermarmi in tali controversie. Noto solamente col Bianconi che 1' alfabeto Greco 
non fu lo stesso in ogni luogo in que' primi secoli ; e dove conto piu lettere, e dove meno." 
— Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 81. 

f Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 201. 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 233 

cid la sagacita, di quest' uomo. Piu che vanno scoprendosi Greche 
iscrizioni di rimote tempi, piu si conosce 1' affinita de' due alfabeti." * 
Pliny, also, observes, — " Veteres Grascas [litteras] fuisse easdem pene 
quae nunc sunt Latinae ;" j~ and Tacitus is of the same opinion, for he 
says, " Forma litteris Latinis, quae veterrimis Graecorum." ^ The first 
part, therefore, of the following remark of Mr. Payne Knight cannot 
be correct : — " The Latin [letters] are said to have been introduced by 
Evander from the Peloponnesus about the time of the Trojan war, and 
were, without doubt, such as were in use in that country in that age. § 
Their number was then small ; but the Romans continued to add to 
them, until they produced the alphabet which is now prevalent in 
Europe. The Pelasgian, probably, came into the parts of Italy west 
of the Tyber at a much earlier period. The Eugubian tablet has no 
E, G, D, or O ; the three first being included in the correspondent 
mutes of the same organ, and the last in the U, which being employed 
as a consonant, or rather aspirate, formed the Pelasgian vau, the 
Roman V, and our W. This letter is generally called the Phoenician 
vau ; but, I believe, it is not to be found upon any authentic monu- 
ment of that people ; whereas in the Pelasgian and Etruscan inscriptions 
it occurs perpetually." || 

If, however, a letter actually exists at this day in the Sanscrit alphabet 
which resembles in every respect the Pelasgian vau and Latin V, will 
not this be admitted to be a very strong proof that the Pelasgic, 
Latin, and Sanscrit letters were originally the same? But the ^" of 
Indian alphabets is generally pronounced as the English W, and 

* Lanzi, Saggio di Lingua Etrusca, vol. i. p. 77. 

f Plin. Nat. Hist., lib.vii. c. 58. t Tacit. Annal., lib. xi. c. 14. 

§ Mr. Knight had just before remarked, — " The Pelasgians are said to have been the first 
colonists who settled in Italy after the Tyrrhenians; and, according to Pliny, brought 
letters into Latium. In this, however, he seems to have been mistaken; for the Latin 
letters, as well as language, are clearly derived from the iEolian or Arcadian, which were 
nearly the same as the Cadmean, and had several characters of which the Pelasgian alphabet 
of the Eugubian tablet is destitute." But this opinion is evidently founded on mere assump- 
tions, the groundlessness of which has, perhaps, appeared from the above observations. 

j| Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 121. 



134 0N THE GREEK, HEBREW, AND SANSCRIT 

sometimes as the English V*, and occasionally in speaking as U. 
Hence, in the Persian alphabet, this letter having been omitted on the 
adoption of the Arabic characters, the _, (wav) assumes, as the pro- 
nunciation of the word requires, the sounds of W, V, U, and O. That 
the Pelasgian vau, or digamma, when in use among the Greeks, was 
pronounced like the English W, would seem probable, from Dionysius 
Halicarnasseus observing that it was the custom of the ancient Greeks 
to prefix the syllable oo, written in one character, to words beginning 
with a vowel, as veXta, Velia f ; and from the Greeks of later times 
using the same character to represent the Latin V, as vxXepiog, Vale- 
rius. Quintilian, also, remarks, — " Desintne aliquse nobis necessarise 
literse, non cum Grasca scribimus (turn enim ab iisdem duas mutu- 
amur), sed proprie in Latinis, ut in his, servus, et vulgus, iEolicum 
digamma desideratur :" | from which it clearly appears, that the 
digamma must have been pronounced as the English W, and not as 
the English B, F, or V ; because these letters existed in the Latin 
alphabet. 

But it is equally clear, from the variety of opinions which have been 
expressed respecting the proper pronunciation of the digamma, that 
this could not have been its only sound ; and that it resembled the 
Sanscrit letter, in admitting of its sound being varied from W to V 
and U. Bishop Marsh, however, contends, in his Horse Pelasgicse, that 
the proper sound of the digamma was the English F; but this is a sound 
which the natives of India § cannot pronounce. Mr. Payne Knight, 
also, remarks, that " it is generally supposed among the learned at 
present, that the digamma was pronounced like our W, for it cor- 
responded with the Latin V, the sound of which was certainly the 

* This is the sound adopted by the Asiatic Society of Calcutta ; but incorrectly, I think, 
as the prevalent sound of this letter in India is W. 

The Sanscrit grammarians consider the W to be a semi-vowel; hence this rule in 
Wilkins's Sanscrit Grammar : — " 36. y, r, and la, with their annexed [inherent] vowel, 
are occasionally convertible into their corresponding vowels, i, ri, and u." 

-j- Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom., lib. i. c. 30. 

X Quint. Inst. Orat., lib. i. c. 4. 

§ I mean the Hindus ; for the Muhammadans retain this sound, however long they may 
have been settled in India. 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. 13 5 

same." * But the difference of opinion on this point is at once re- 
conciled, by admitting that the sound of the digamma and the Latin V 
was variable, and not fixed ; since Quintilian expressly states that this 
was the case with respect to the latter : for this conclusion is strongly 
confirmed by the identical words which still exist in Greek, Latin, 
and Sanscrit ; as, for instance, S. widanti, G. eidovTui, L. vident ; 
S. wdmati, G. s^enai, L. vomit ; S. diwam, G. <W, L. divum ; S. dwim, 
G. oiv, L. ovem; S. navam, G. vuw, L. navem; S. ndwam, G. veov, 
L. novum ; S. wdchdm, G, o<r<ruv s L. vocem.f 

When, therefore, the whole of the preceding observations are duly 
considered, it will perhaps be admitted that the similarity of the 
Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit alphabetical systems is as remarkable as 
the singular affinity which exists between these languages. The sim- 
plicity, also, of the system which ascribes to Babylonia the invention 
of letters, and the communication of them of Asia Minor, whence they 
were carried to other countries by the Pelasgi, must alone render it highly 
probable. Nor is it opposed by any sufficient authority, as the only 
objection to it which can arise proceeds solely from the long received 
but unfounded opinion, that the Greeks derived a knowledge of letters 
from the Phenicians ; while, on the contrary, it is supported by all 
that ancient history, sacred and profane, has related of Assyria, and by 
the far-spread fame of the Pelasgi, the memory of which has been pre- 
served by the poets and historians of antiquity. 

* Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 11. 

f But, besides the omission of the W, or digamma, in Greek words, it would seem 
probable that, when it fell into disuse, its place was supplied by some other letter, as 
S. sewete, G. o-eGercti ; S. tioagmi^ G. §«y/x« ; and S. wahate, perhaps, G. o^esTat, L. vehit. 



13<? 



CHAP. X. 

THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

J3y letters has the glory of the Greeks and Romans been immortalised ; 
but, amongst the ancestors of the Teutonic people, no poet or historian 
arose to transmit to posterity an account of their origin, or the fame of 
their deeds : for it was not until A. D. 360, that letters were first known 
among the Goths. Gibbon, however, observes, — " In the beginning 
of the sixth century, and after the conquest of Italy, the Goths, in 
possession of present greatness, very naturally indulged themselves in 
the prospect of past and future glory. They wished to preserve the 
memory of their ancestors, and to transmit to posterity their own 
achievements. The principal minister of the court of Ravenna, the 
learned Cassiodorus, gratified the inclination of the conquerors in a 
Gothic history which consisted of twelve books, now reduced to the 
imperfect abridgment of Jornandes. These writers passed with the 
most artful conciseness over the misfortunes of the nation, celebrated 
its success, and adorned the triumph with many Asiatic trophies, that 
more properly belonged to the people of Scythia. On the faith of 
ancient songs, the uncertain but the only memorials of barbarians, they 
deduced the first origin of the Goths from the vast island or peninsula 
of Scandinavia."* Leibnitz, also, remarks, — " Ego Jornandis autori- 
tatem non plane contemno, etsi non semper tutam fatear, prassertim 
in remotis, nee satis cohaerentia narrare deprehendam. Secutus est 
Ablabium, et Senatoris, id est Cassiodori libros de Gothicis deperditos. 
Jornandes ergo Gothus, ex Scandinavia Gothos arcessit, etsi eos Getis, 
longe antiquioribus Ponti Euxini accolis, confundat."-|" 

Such is the only account of the ancestors of the Teutonic people 
which was ever written ; but Gibbon very justly remarks that " We 

* Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol.i. p. 387. 
f Leibnitii Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 196. 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. \ 37 

may safely pronounce that, without some species of writing, no people 
has ever preserved the faithful annals of its history." The single, un- 
supported assertion, therefore, of a writer in the sixth century, that the 
Goths were the descendants of men who had migrated, two thousand 
years previously, from Scandinavia to the Euxine Sea, cannot be en- 
titled to any credit, and, consequently, deserves not consideration.* 
Gibbon, however, states, — " If so many successive generations of 
Goths were capable of preserving a faint tradition of their Scandinavian 
origin, we must not expect, from such unlettered barbarians, any dis- 
tinct account of the time and circumstances of their emigration. To 

* The writers of the Ancient Universal History, indeed, gravely state, that " the time 
when the Goths first settled in Scandinavia, and the period at which they first peopled 
with their colonies the islands, the Chersonesus, and neighbouring places, are equally 
uncertain. Their first settlement is said to have been conducted by King Eric, contem- 
porary with Saruch, grandfather of Abraham The second migration is related 

by Jornandes, and supposed to have happened several ages after, when, the above-mentioned 
countries being overstocked with people, Berig, at that time king of the Goths, sailed with 
a fleet in quest of new settlements." — Vol. xvii. p. 168. 

As authorities for the first part of this account, they l-efer to Grotius and Sheringham. 
I therefore extract what they have said on this subject : — " Prima migratio Getarum fuit 
sub auspiciis Erici regis ; is sub temporibus Sarugi, qui proavus erat Abrahami, vixisse 
dicitur; et Getis imperasse, primusque in illas terras colonias misisse. Chronicon antiquum, 
rhythmice Gothica lingua centenis aliquot abhinc annis conscriptum, de Erico hsec habet. 
.... i. e. Ego primus Gothlandice rexfui; turn nemo inhabitavit Skaniam aut Wetalaheedham, 
ego primus regiones illas condidi, et in ditionem meam recepi, ideo oportet ipsos Gothis semper 
tributum solvere. Iste Dyarius (i. e. heros) liabuit totam Wettalaheydham, quae nunc Zelandia, 
Mona, Fionia, Lalandia, et Falstera vacatur ; turn vixit Sarug, qui proavus erat Abrahami" — 
De Aug. Gent. Orig. Disc, p. 143. 

Grotius says, — " Quod initium his regnis [Scanziae] fuerit cum non appareat, haud temere 
et indigenis et vicinis creditum est, quo primum tempore post magnum diluvium ex Asia 
homines in Europam se infundere cceperunt, has regiones inter primas ab iis insessas et 
regna ibi, quod antiquissimum imperii genus haud falso dictum est, constituta. Nam ex 
Armenia Syriaque, ubi primos post diluvium mortales vixisse profanis etiam testimoniis 
constat, profecti Scythae trans eas qnas nunc Sarmatarum dicimus terras in Germanise 

septentrionalia venere Scythicam vero linguam matricem esse Germanicae, cujus pars 

Suedica ac Norwagica, multa sunt quae credi jubeant." — Proleg. in Hist, Goth., p. 7. 

How such a writer as Gibbon could give any countenance to these reveries is most 
surprising: but, in maintaining the Scythian, Celtic, and Scandinavian hypotheses, common 
sense and the first principles of reasoning have been so completely disregarded, that, unless 
an author is fully aware of this circumstance, he cannct easily avoid the errors of the writers 
whom he is obliged to consult. 

T 



138 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

cross the Baltic was an easy and natural attempt ; the inhabitants of 
Sweden were masters of a sufficient number of large vessels with oars 
and the distance is little more than 100 miles from Carlscroon to the 
nearest parts of Pomerania and Prussia. Here at length we land on 
firm and historic ground : at least, as early as the Christian asra, and as 
late as the Antonines, the Goths were established towards the mouth 
of the Vistula, and in that fertile province where the commercial cities 
of Thorn, Elbing, Koningsberg, and Dantzic were long afterwards 

founded In the age of the Antonines the Goths were still seated in 

Prussia. About the reign of Alexander Severus, the Roman province 
of Dacia had already experienced their proximity by frequent and 
destructive inroads. In this interval, therefore, of about seventy years, 
we must place the second migration of the Goths from the Baltic to the 
Euxine ; but the cause that produced it lies concealed amono the 
various motives which actuate the conduct of unsettled barbarians."* 

But, if the Goths who attacked the Roman empire did not migrate 
from the shores of the Baltic, this relation must necessarily be 
erroneous. To found, also, a historical account on deductions drawn 
solely from the countries which the Goths are supposed, without suffi- 
cient grounds, to have inhabited, and unsupported by any collateral 
authority whatever, is contrary to every principle of historical composi- 
tion. If, therefore, it can be shown that the usual scepticism and 
singular accuracy of Gibbon have deserted him on this occasion 3 and 
that the Goths inhabited from time immemorial the very country which 
they occupied when they first attacked the Roman empire, their 
Scandinavian origin will be completely disproved. This point, I am 
aware, has been already very fully discussed by former writers ; but, as 
their opinions are founded on either the Scythian or Scandinavian 
hypothesis, it becomes, in consequence, necessary to reexamine this 
subject at some length. 

Had not, however, such numerous instances occurred of learned men 
preferring to search at a distance for that which was actually lying 
before them, it might excite surprise how any doubt respecting the 

* Gibbon's Roman Empire, vol. i. p. 392, 393. 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. |S9 

origin of the Teutonic people could ever have arisen : for, from the 
time of Homer until they began to be distinguished by the name of 
Goths, frequent mention of their ancestors is found in ancient writers ; 
among whom no difference of opinion exists, with respect either to the 
original generic name of that people, or to the country which they had 
inhabited from time immemorial. The Thracians are repeatedly 
noticed by Homer* ; and from the time that they are more distinctly 
described by Herodotus, until Procopius, during the course of nearly 
1000 years, there appears not the slightest reason for supposing that 
their country was ever occupied by another race of men ; but, on the 
contrary, it is clearly established, by the authority of ancient writers, 
that the Thracians extended themselves far and wide beyond the limits 
of the country which they had originally possessed. From the Thra- 
cians, also, as it has been shown in the seventh chapter, did the Greeks, 

* I quote the following lines from Pope's translation : — 

" When now the thunderer on the sea- beat coast 
Had fix'd great Hector and his conq'ring host ; 
He left them to the fates, in bloody fray, 
To toil and struggle through the well-fought day ; 
Then turn'd to Thracia from the field of fight 
Those eyes that shed insufferable light : 
To where the Mysians prove their martial force, 
And hardy Thracians tame the savage horse ; 
And where the far-famed Hippomolgian strays, 
Renown'd for justice and for length of days; 
Thrice happy race ! that, innocent of blood, 
From milk innoxious seek their simple food ; 
Jove sees delighted." Iliad, b. xiii. v. 1 — 13. 

" Rhigmus, whose race from fruitful Thracia came." 

Ibid., b. xx. v. 485. 

" And last a large well-labour'd bowl had place, 
The pledge of treaties once with friendly Thrace." Ibid., b. xxiv. 

The translation of the two last verses does not sufficiently express the sense of the 
original : — 

Ex 8e Seiroi; TrepmaWs;, 6 o\ ©prjxej nopov uv$pe$ 

Ej;e<riY}V e\dovri, psya. xrepois' oofie vv tod nep 

<£>eio-ciT' svt lAsyapots 6 yepoov itepi 8' rjSsXs Qu/j.u> 

Avo-otaQw fiXov vlov. Iliad, w, 234- 

T 2 



140 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

even according to their own accounts, derive their language, civilis- 
ation, and religion : for, that the Pelasgi were Thracians, will not be 
doubted, after considering the following conclusive reasoning of Bishop 
Marsh : — " But as we know that Europe was peopled from Asia, 
either the first settlers in Peloponnesus traversed the Egean Sea, in 
which case Greece might have been peopled from south to north ; 
or the first migration from Asia Minor to Europe was across either the 
Hellespont or the Thracian Bosphorus [or both], in which case Greece 
was peopled from north to south. Now it is infinitely more probable 
that the first settlers in Thrace should have crossed the Hellespont, 
where the land on one side is visible from the land on the other, and 
that Greece should have been peopled from Thrace, than that the first 
settlers in Greece should have come immediately across the Egean Sea, 
and have consequently embarked in Asia, without knowing that an 
opposite coast was in existence. We may, therefore, fairly presume that 
Thrace was the first European settlement of the Pelasgi, and that they 
gradually spread themselves southward till they had occupied the whole 
of Greece. Indeed Thrace was the original seat of Grecian song and 
Grecian fable. Thamyris, who is said to have challenged the Muses, 
was a Thracian ; so was Orpheus ; so was Musseus : and the mysteries 
of the Cabiri were celebrated in Samothrace, before the temple of 
Delphi existed." * 

It is, at the same time, indisputable that the original seat of the 
Thracians extended from Macedonia to the Euxine, along the shores 
of the Hellespont, Propontis, and Thracian Bosphorus, and conse- 
quently their Asiatic origin cannot admit of a doubt, f But the 

* Horae Pelasgicae, p. 13. 

f As, also, it is much more probable that the Thracians, after migrating from Asia 
Minor, did not send any colonies there, the following passage of Strabo, p. 295., must be 
considered as applying to that part of the same people which remained in Asia Minor when 
the other migrated : — K«i ou; vuv Mvtrovs xa.\ovo~iv a.$' wv wp^y\crocv x«i ol vuv y.eTx%v 
Avdvov, jc«» <£>pvyuiv, xui Tpwwv omovvti; Mixr or kou uvtoi 8' ol Qpuyeg Bpvye; ettri, Qpa.-x.iov rt 
eQvo$, x.x8a.7rep xaj ol MuySovsj kou 1 Bs§pvx.s;, %a\ Me8o£i0uvoi, x«( BiSuvoj x«i Qvvot, 8oxw 8e 
xai toi»5 MapiavSuvouj. 

Herodotus, also, mentions the Thracian origin of the Phrygians and Bithynians, and 
assigns a distinct place in the army of Xerxes to the Asiatic Thracians. 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. j41 

western and northern boundaries of the country which they at first 
occupied are uncertain: for Rennell observes, — "But as Thrace is 
confined on the east and south by the sea, and on the north by the 
Danube ; and as Macedonia and Paeonia are mentioned by Herodotus 
as distinct countries ; the extent of Thrace, even allowing it to extend 
into Dardania and Mcesia, must be much more circumscribed than 
the idea of our author allows. It has, however, more extended limits 
in his geography, than in that of succeeding authors ; and, perhaps, 
might have included most of the space along the south of the Danube 
between the Euxine and Istria, meeting the borders of Macedonia, 
Paeonia, &c. on the south." * Respecting the inhabitants of this 
country, Herodotus remarks that " The Thracian race is the most 
numerous of all mankind, except the Indian ; and were the Thracians 
governed by one person, or did they even act with one common 
consent, they would be, in my opinion, the most invincible, and the 
most powerful of men : " f but he gives no account of either their 
origin or their history. 

I admit that there are no authorities by which it can be proved that 
the Thracians of Herodotus were the descendants of the Thracians 
who existed in the times of Orpheus, Musasus, and Homer : but, that 
they were, was the concurrent opinion of ancient writers ; and this 
general belief ought certainly to be considered as much more valid 
testimony of so probable a fact, than the authority of such a writer as 
Jornandes to prove so improbable an event as the migration of 
Scandinavians to the Euxine Sea a few centuries after the deluge, 
and their subsequent conquest of Thracia. ^ But, from the time of 

* Geography of Herodotus, p. 44. f Herod., lib. v. c. 3. 

% The following remarks of Pinkerton are so just that I cannot omit them : — " Such is 
the line which Jornandes pursues; and his account of the origin of the Scvthae was blindly 
followed by Isidorus, by Beda, who calls Scandinavia, Scythia, by Paulus Diaconus, by the 
geographer of Ravenna, and by innumerable others in the dark ages. Nay, such an effect 
may even a very weak writer (for such Jornandes is) have upon literature, that one sentence 
of Jornandes has overturned the very basis of the history of Europe. This famous 
sentence is in his fourth chapter: Ex hac igitur Scandia insula, quasi ofi'icina gentium, 
aut certe velut vagina nationum, cum rege suo nomine Berig Gothi memoranlur egressi. Upon 
this one sentence have all modern historians, nay, such writers as Montesquieu, Gibbon, and 



142 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

Herodotus, until the general prevalence of the name of Goths, it is 
undeniable that the Thracians remained unconquered, and that they 
extended themselves from Macedonia to the Dniester, and from the 
Euxine Sea to the confines of Germany. For, as the Getae are iden- 
tified by ancient writers with the Thracians, and as neither proof nor 
probability supports the assumptions that Thracia was ever occupied 
by either Scythians or Scandinavians, it must necessarily follow that 
whatever is predicated of the Getae must equally apply to the 
Thracians ; and, consequently, if the Getae were Goths, the Goths 
were also Thracians. To determine, therefore, the identity of the 
Getae and Goths, it may be remarked, that from Strabo it appears that 
the country immediately to the south of the Elbe was inhabited by the 
Suevi ; then succeeded the country of the Getae, which extended along 
the southern bank of the Danube, and also to the north of that river 
as far as the Dniester ; but the exact boundaries of this country were 
uncertain. The Mcesi, likewise, dwelt on both banks of the Danube, 
and were, equally with the Getae, considered by the Greeks to be a 
Thracian people. The Dacians, also, were a Thracian people, and 
spoke the same language as the Getae ; and when Alexander the Great 
attacked the Triballi, another Thracian people near the mountain 
Haemus, he found that they extended as far as the Danube and its 
mouth. Pliny, also, observes, — "Thracia sequitur, inter validissimas 
Europae gentes, in strategias quinquagenas divisa." Among these 
he enumerates the Mcesi and Getae, and remarks that the latter were 
called Dacians by the Romans. * 

From a consideration of these geographical details, it must appear 



others of the first name, built ! Now it can be clearly shown that Scandinavia was, down to 
a late period, nay, is at present, almost overrun with enormous forests, where there was no 
room for population. Adam of Bremen, who wrote in the eleventh century, instructs us 
that even in Denmark at that time the sea-coasts alone were peopled, while the inner parts 
of the country were one vast forest. If such was the case in Denmark, we may guess that 
in Scandinavia even the shores were scarcely peopled. Scandinavia is also a mountainous 
region ; and, among a barbaric and unindustrious people, the mountains are almost 
unpeopled." — Diss, on the Scythians or Goths, p. 23. 
* Plin, Nat. Hist., lib. iv. c. 11, 12. 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 143 

utterly improbable that a body of Scandinavians could not only have 
conquered so numerous and powerful a people as the Getse*, but, 
also, have suffered so little in the conquest as to be still able to attack 
the Roman empire immediately afterwards. If, also, this migration of 
Scandinavians took place at the time mentioned by Gibbon, when 
considerable intercourse was carried on between the Romans and 
Getas, some mention of such a revolution would most likely have 
occurred in ancient writers : but respecting such an event they are 
absolutely silent, and even Jornandes positively contradicts the 
historian. I cannot, however, ascertain on what authority, if any, 
is founded the relation which Gibbon has given of the progress of the 
Scandinavians from the shores of the Baltic, until they arrived at 
Nicopolis on the Jatrus. In this instance, therefore, the account of 
Jornandes seems so probable as to be entitled to every credit ; for 
he says, — " Nam gens ista [Getica] mirum in modum in ea parte, qua 
versabatur, id est Ponti in littore Scythias soli innotuit, sine dubio 
tanta spacia tenens terrarum, tot sinus maris, tot fluminum cursus, sub 
cujus ssepe dextra Wandalus jacuit, stetit sub precio Marcomannus, 
Quadorum principes in servitutem redacti sunt, Phil ippo namque ante- 
dicto regnante Romanis, qui solus ante Constantinum Christianus cum 
Philippo, id est filio, fuit, cujus et secundo anno regni Roma millesimum 
annum explevit, Gothi, ut assolet, distracta sive stipendia sua ferentes 
asgre, de amicis facti sunt inimici. Nam quamvis remolis sub regibus 
viverent suis, Reipublicae tamen Romanae fcederati erant, et annua 
munera percipiebant. Quid multa ? Transiens tunc Ostrogotha cum 
suis Danubium, Mcesiam Thraciamque vastavit." j~ But the identity 

* Strabo observes, in p. 304, 305., that the Getse and Dacians had at one time so 
increased in numbers as to be able to form armies of 200,000 men ; but that, in consequence 
of civil dissensions and wars with the Romans, they could not, at the time when he wrote, 
raise an army of more than 40,000 men. 

f Jornandes de Reb. Get., c. xvi. 

Sheringham remarks, — " Getarum arma victricia in Scythia, Thracia, Dacia, Mcesia, ad 
Istrum, et mare Ponticum exposuimus, eosque in illis regionibus, pro varietate sedis varia 
habuisse nomina ; sed omnes uno communi nomine Getas, a Greeds et Latinis vocatos esse 
diximus. Hi, vero, procedente tempore, legiones et vexilla sua in ultimos Europae fines 
detulerunt, et quod bellicosius erat, ipsam Romam, et ferocientes Romanos magis cicures et 



144 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

of the Getse and Goths cannot be better proved than by these two 
sentences of Capitolinus in Maximino : — "Sub Macrino a militia 
desiit, et in Thracia, in vico ubi genitus fuerat, possessiones coin- 
paravit, ac semper cum Gothis commercia exercuit. Amatus est autem 
unice a Getis quasi eorum civis." * Spartianus, also, in Caracalla, after 
relating the death of Geta, adds, — " Non ab re est etiam diasyrticum 
quiddam in eum dictum addere. Nam cum Ger?na?iici, et Parthici, 
et Arabici, et Alemannici nomen ascriberet Helvius Pertinax filius 
Pertinacis dicitur joco dixisse, Adde si placet etiam Geticus Maximus, 
quod Getam occiderat fratrem, et Gotti Getse dicerentur." j~ Pro- 
copius, therefore, was perfectly correct in expressing this opinion : — 
" The Goths were formerly, and still continue, a numerous people ; 
but amongst them the greatest and most distinguished are the Goths, 

© © o 7 

Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepidae. In ancient times they were called 
Sauromatse and Melanchlaeni, and by some the Getic nation. They 
thus differ from each other in name, but in nothing else ; for they 
are all fair, yellow-haired, and good-looking ; they observe the same 
institutions, and worship the same God, as they are all of the Arian 
sect j and they all use the same language, which is called Gothic. It, 



mansuetos effecerunt, Romanumque imperium ita elumbaverint, ut mitius tractatu aliis 
quoquegentibus exinde fuit; ex quibus plurimae arrepta dehinc occasione animos sustnlerint, 
atque diutinam servitutem et exitiale jugum excusserint. Turn primum Getae Gothorum 
nomine Graecis Romanisque noti sunt: deinceps vero scriptoribus nunc Getae nunc Gothi 
appellantur. De his quidem apud antiquos, qui ea tempestate vixerint, qua Gothicum 
bellum susceptum est, summa concordia ; postmille tamen annos Cluverius Germanicarum, et 
Pontanus Danicarum rerum scriptores, cum nuperis aliis haec negant ; hi Getas a Gothis, 
utrosque a Scythis diversam esse gentem magno conatu nixuque contendunt ; quorum sen- 
tentia non minore falsitate, quam novitate referta mihi in hoc loco refellenda est." — De Ang. 
Gent. Orig. Disc, p. 179. 

Of Cluverius, Grotius observes, — " Apparet hinc supra omnium quas legimus his- 
toriarum memoriam scandens regnorum Suediae Norwegiaeque antiquitas, bene observata 
Germaniae descriptori, cujus ego diligentiam et eruditionem sic laudo, ut audaciam tamen, 
spernentis saepe sine ullo firmo satis argumento codicum auctoritatem, consensumque 
vetustatis, et acceptas ab ultimis sseculis lamas, multaque fingentis ex inanibus valde con- 
jecturis, nee probaverim unquam nee sim probaturus." — Proleg. in Hist. Goth., p. 7, 

* Hist. Aug. Scrip., vol. ii. p. 1 7. 

f Ibid., vol, i. p, 73. 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 145 

therefore, appears to me that they were all originally the same nation, 
but have been subsequently distinguished by the names of their chiefs. 
The people formerly dwelt beyond the Danube, and afterwards the 
Gepidas possessed the country about Singedunum and Sermium, on 
this and that side of the Danube, where they are now settled."* 

But, to evince that the Thracians or Getas were the same people 
as the Germans, no proofs can be adduced, except the extreme pro- 
bability of the fact, and the irrefutable testimony of language. The 
opinion on this point, entertained by the learned men of Germany, is, I 
believe, correctly expressed in these words of Eccard : — " Habitaverunt 
itaque primum majores nostri Celtarumque ibi locorum, ubi postea 
Cimmerii Scythasque sese invicem, Herodoti testimonio, exceperunt, 
circa paludem nempe Maeotidem, et sub jugis Caucasi montis. Inde 
excursiones fecere, et Asiae Europasque sunt dominati." *f The futility 
of this hypothesis I have perhaps demonstrated in the fifth chapter j 
but the following remarks seem just : — " Nee audiendi sunt Septen- 
trionales, qui ex Asia per Scythiam ad Finnones, indeque vel per 
Lappones vel per Botnicum sinum ad Suecos, atque hinc demum 
transmisso Balthico mari in Germaniam traductos fuisse majores 
nostros ferunt. His et illustris Leibnitius peculiari dissertatione con- 
tradixit. Difficultas et anfractus itineris illius, inclementia cceli, 
infelicitas soli posterioribus demum temporibus exustis sylvis exculti, 
migrationi huic adversantur. Nee verosimile est, spretis mitioribus 
locis, asperrima deserta placuisse novas sedes quagrentibus. Multo 
magis opinari licet, minorem gentis partem in Septentrionalia regna 
ex majori, propinqua nempe Germania, venisse, trajectis maris Bal- 
thici fretis, aut Codano sinu, quern olim, cum a maris violentia littora 
nondum tot detrimenta accepissent, arctiorem, atque adeo trajectu 
multo faciliorem, quam nunc est, fuisse, non sine causa forte statuit 
Jo. Daniel Maior." | 

If, however, Germany was not peopled from Scandinavia, or from 

* Procopius in Bell. Van., lib. i. c. 2. 

f De Origine Germanorum, p. 20. % Ibid, p. 39. 

U 



146 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

Sarmatia *, as the want of affinity between the German and Slavonic 
languages sufficiently proves, there can be no other country than 
Thracia from which it could have received its inhabitants. Eccard, 
indeed, remarks, — " Germani itaque fuerunt, qui primi nomina heec 
sylvis, montibus, et fluviis nostris indiderunt. Nee praeter Germanicam 
linguam ullius alterius idiomatis vestigia apud nos invenies, quod 
indicio est, majores hie nostras primos et solos degisse, nullis aliarum 
gentium incursionibus infestatos, aut coloniis mixtos. Atque errant 
omnino, qui patriae nostras primo Scythas, inde Celtas, et postea Gothos 
obtrudunt." f But he cannot have intended to revive the exploded 
doctrine of the inhabitants of any country being autochthones; and, 
as the population of Europe from Asia is proved by such numerous 
circumstances, it must necessarily follow that Germany also received 
a people whose ancestors had at some remote period migrated from 
Asia. The very position, therefore, of Thracia is sufficient to evince 
that the Thracians alone could have gradually extended themselves 
from the Hellespont to the shores of the Baltic, and thence to Scan- 
dinavia : for, to suppose that the ancestors of the Germans proceeded 
from Mount Ararat across Caucasus to the Palus Masotis, and thence 
to Germany, is equally incredible as these singular conjectures : — " In 
Asia et hie Arminius enituit, multisque seculis Arminio Cherusco 
antiquior fuit. Chaldaei Persseque duos deos venerati sunt, unum 
bonum, Oromasdem, alterum malum, Arimanium. Non inepte suspi- 
catur Leibnitius, Arimanium forte magna Asice parte perdomita, cum 

* Pinkerton remarks, — " The first of these opinions, namely, that the Germans were 
Sarmatians, proceeds from such gross ignorance, that I am really ashamed to mention, 
much more to refute it. I have diligently perused most writers on German antiquities, 
but they had all some degree of reading, and could never fall into an error which the 
whole ancient authors, and complete modern knowledge, concur to refute. . . . Sorry I 
am, at the end of the eighteenth century, to be showing, against a British author, that the 
Germans were not Sarmatae ; that is, that a Saxon, or a Silesian, is not a Russian, and does 
not speak the Sarmatic [Slavonic], but Gothic language. For if a German student, in his 
first year at college, should happen to see this tract, he will conclude me as ignorant as my 
countryman, Mr. M'Pherson ; to confute absolute nonsense being surely as ridiculous as 
to write it." — Diss, on Scythians or Goths, p. 91. 93. 

f De Origine Germanorum, p. 59. 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. J 47 

Ormisda, orientalium populorum rege, conflixisse, et terrore sui nominis, 
ut alter beneficiis, divinitatem meruisse. Graecis ex eodera Hermes sive 
Mercurius confictus est, quia sapientiae illis author fuit. Nee repugnem, 
si quis ex eodem Arimanio A^eioc, seu Martem Graecorum, rejecta 
ultima syllaba man, prodiisse dicat." * 

The very homogeneity, also, of the German language supports a 
hypothesis which supposes that Germany was not merely occupied 
by the Thracians as conquerors, but that it was actually peopled 
by this race of men, or, at least, that it so far predominated as to 
expel the former inhabitants, or to absorb them entirely within the 
new population. The language, therefore, would be originally Thracian ; 
but, in the course of time, and long separation, and, perhaps, from 
the influence of the speech of the former inhabitants, it would gradually 
assume a distinct character, and, losing its absolute identity, would 
still retain undeniable traces of affinity with the mother tongue. Nor 
can it be supposed that, among the widely dispersed tribes of Thracia 
itself, leading a rude and uncivilised life, and unacquainted with 
letters, the language of Asia Minor could have been long preserved 
in its pristine purity. No information, however, respecting the 
causes that may have occasioned the country which communicated 
its language, civilisation, and religion to Greece, to relapse into 
barbarity, can be derived from ancient writers : but, whatever the 
causes may have been, the effect must have produced such an alteration 
in the parent tongue, amongst the Thracian people, as to create that 
difference which took place between the Greek and Latin, and the 
Thracian languages. Even the latter, from the peculiar circumstances 
under which the widely extended tribes of Thracia lived, must, in 
the course of fifteen hundred vears, have become divided into various 
distinct dialects : but, still, these languages and dialects would preserve 
such a remarkable affinity, as to render it indisputable that they were 
all derived from one common origin. 

It is precisely in this state that the Thracian language presents 
itself, in the earliest written monuments of it which have been pre- 

* De Origine Germanorum, p. 18. 

u 2 



X48 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

served. Unfortunately these are of comparatively modern date. For 
Dr. Jamieson observes, in the Hermes Scythicus, — " The most ancient 
proofs referred to in this inquiry, are from the justly celebrated 
version of Ulphilas, Bishop of the Mceso-Goths. The year 360 is 
the latest date assigned to this version. Many learned writers, how- 
ever, have affirmed that it was made in the reien of Constantine 
the Great. It is much to be regretted, that all that remains of the 
labours of Ulphilas is his version of the four gospels, of which nearly 
one half has been lost, besides some fragments of the Epistle to 
the Romans. Our proofs from the Mceso- Gothic are thus extremely 
limited. It is unquestionable that the Anglo-Saxon is merely a 
daughter of the ancient Gothic. It was introduced into England 
about the year 450, or nearly a century after the date of the version 
of Ulphilas. We have, indeed, no Anglo-Saxon writer older than 
Caedmon, who flourished three centuries later than the Bishop of 
Mcesia. But so close is the affinity of these two languages, that the 
learned Hickes included both in the same grammar. The Alemannic, 
or Franco-Theotisc, has the next claim in point of antiquity. But of 
this there are no memorials previous to the reign of Charlemagne."* 

But, comparatively recent as these memorials are, since the separation 
of the Greek, Latin, and Thracian people must have probably taken, 
place at least two centuries before the poems of Homer were written, 
or eleven hundred years before the birth of Christ, they incontestably 
prove that the Teutonic dialects are the legitimate daughters of the 
Thracian or Pelasgic language, and, consequently, that Germany must 
have been peopled by the Thracians. j" The insuperable difficulty, 

* Hermes Scythicus, Intr. p. 4. 

■f When and how this event took place it is useless to conjecture, because there are no 
data on which any probable opinion respecting it can be formed ; but, from the manner in 
which it seems most likely that the world was peopled, the unphilosophical incorrectness 
of this opinion of Gibbon must be evident : — " When Tacitus considered the purity of the 
German blood, and the forbidding aspect of the country, he was disposed to pronounce 
these barbarians indigence, or natives of the soil. We may allow with safety, and perhaps with 
truth, that ancient Germany was not originally peopled by any foreign colonies already 
formed into a political society ; but that the name and nation received their existence from 
the gradual union of some wandering savages of the Hercynian woods. To assert those 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 149 

therefore, which learned men have hitherto experienced, in their 
attempts to explain satisfactorily the wonderful affinity which exists 
between these dialects and Greek and Latin, is at once surmounted ; 
and it hence appears that this affinity proceeds from the simple 
fact of the Greeks, Latins, Hetrurians, and Thracians having all at 
one time spoken the same language, because they were all originally 
but one and the same people. Nor can the Teutonic race desire 
a more illustrious origin than those Pelasgi, whose far- spread fame 
is still attested by the honorific epithets applied to them by ancient 
writers : but the Teutonic people must regret that their ancestors 
preferred a life of rude independence to cultivating those arts by 
which their kindred, the Greeks and Romans, have acquired such 
undying celebrity. 

It is not, however, solely on the translation of Ulphilas that 
depends the identification of the Thracian and German people and 
their languages, but on the undeniable affinity of all the Teutonic 
dialects ; while there prevails at the same time such a dissimilarity 
between them, as to show clearly that no one of them could have 
been derived from another. Dr. Jamieson, indeed, considers the 
Anglo-Saxon to be merely a daughter of the Mceso-Gothic : but 
the remains of Ulphilas's translation are much too few and imperfect 
to warrant such an opinion ; and an examination of the various 
Teutonic dialects must evince that they all originally agreed in their 
grammatical structure, and differed merely in words. It is this cir- 
cumstance, therefore, which so strongly proves that no one of these 
dialects can be the parent language, but that they must have all 
been derived from some common origin. A German, an English- 
man, and a Swede cannot at this day understand each other ; but the 
slightest acquaintance with their respective dialects at once shows 
that their ancestors must have spoken, at some remote period, the 



savages to have been the spontaneous production of the earth which they inhabited, would 
be a rash inference, condemned by religion, and unwarranted by reason." — Roman Empire, 
vol. i. p. 349. 



i50 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

same language. Words, also, identical with Greek and Latin terms 
occur in some one of these dialects, which are not found in the 
others : but what is still more remarkable are the 413 Sanscrit 
words * which can still be discovered in German and English, of 
which 43 are found in German and not in English, and 138 in 
English and not in German, f 

These singular facts, however, cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, 
unless it be admitted that the Teutonic dialects are merely cognate, and 
that they are all derived from one common origin, the Thracian or 
Pelasgic language ; in which case the diversity now existing between 
them may be justly ascribed to the different tribes having preserved a 
greater or lesser number of the words that belonged to the mother 
tongue, and to each of them having replaced such words as might 
have fallen into disuse, and afterwards become requisite, by newly 
invented terms unknown to the others. It is also impossible to 
ascertain whether Germany and Scandinavia were peopled previous to 
the immigration of the Thracians ; but, as they most probably were 
inhabited at that time by distinct tribes, their speech must have 
exerted an equal influence over the Thracian language, as has unques- 
tionably been exerted over the Latin by that of the Aborigines of Italy. 
From all these considerations, therefore, it may be justly concluded 
that all the Teutonic dialects are derived from one parent language, 
the Thracian, which was originally the same as the Greek and Latin, 
and also the same as that which was originally spoken in Asia Minor, 
and thence communicated by the Pelasgi to Thracia, Greece, and 
Italy. 

To the justness of this conclusion I am aware of only one objection : 
for it may be contended that, if the Greek, Latin, and Thracian 
languages were originally but one and the same tongue, a much greater 

* See the Comparative Table in Part II. 

f If I had had an opportunity of referring to dictionaries of the other Teutonic dialects, 
it is probable that I might have discovered in all of them Sanscrit words, which do not 
occur in German and English ; for I have observed a few, in merely perusing Hickes's 
Thesaurus, the Saxon Chronicle, Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Edda of 
Soemunde. 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. \^\ 

similarity than what can now be discovered ought to exist in their 
grammatical structure. For, though the Teutonic noun still retains 
its inflections, had the verb ever possessed thirty tenses* as in Sanscrit, 
or eighty-seven as in Greek, in what manner has it been reduced to 
two or three only ? In the Latin, and even in the modern languages 
derived from it, during all the vicissitudes of a long course of ages, the 
verb has never been thus shorn of its moods and tenses. The sim- 
plicity, therefore, which prevails in the inflection of a Teutonic verb, is 
alone sufficient to indicate that this language cannot be derived from 
the same origin as Greek and Latin ; but experience shows that a 
rude people prefer the use of auxiliary verbs for the formation of 
tenses, to the more artificial mode of inflecting the verb for this 
purpose ; and, consequently, no just conclusion respecting the original 
grammatical structure of their language, when existing in its primitive 
purity, can be drawn from the Thracians, after having relapsed into 
barbarity, having adopted this inartificial but convenient mode of 
varying the sense of the verb. Though, also, this objection might 
appear valid if it could not be controverted by arguments of greater 
validity, it must entirely lose its effect when the number of words in the 
Teutonic dialects which are cognate with terms in Greek, Latin, and 
particularly Sanscrit, are taken into consideration : for the number of 
hypotheses which have been proposed for the explanation of this fact 
have all hitherto proved equally unsatisfactory; because not one of them 
adequately accounts for it, and all are founded on the strangest and 
most inadmissible assumptions. But the conclusions which I now 
point out fully explain the cause of the remarkable affinity which exists 
between these languages, and also recommend themselves by their 
extreme simplicity and probability. 

Mr. Turner, however, is of opinion that the Anglo-Saxon is by no 
means in its original purity, and that it contains words corresponding 
with those of other languages f : but it seems to me that its originality 

* Including the participles, the inflections of the Sanscrit verb are forty-six. 
f History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. ii. p. 461. He also observes, in the concluding 
sentence of the following chapter : — " I should have been desirous to have stated some 



152 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

cannot be doubted, as the Sanscrit words, and those apparently Greek 
and Latin, which it contains are all referable to the same parent 
language. The very examples which Mr. Turner adduces in support 
of his opinion irresistibly lead to this conclusion : for of the five 
verbs*, the fragments of which form the Anglo-Saxon verb, four are 
found in Sanscrit ; as will be evident from the following comparison of 
its tenses with the Sanscrit verbs : — 

1. 2. 3. 

Anglo-Saxon, eom es is * The plural sind or sint is not a 

Sanscrit, asmi asi astif distinct verb, but the Saxon third 

person plural, santi. 

In the subjunctive mood the Anglo-Saxon preserves the root, but 
rejects the inflection ; as, 

1. 2. 3. 

Anglo-Saxon, sy sy sy 

Sanscrit, siam siah siat. 

The Anglo-Saxon beom bist bith 

are the Sanscrit bhawami bhawasi bhawati j 
and the Anglo-Saxon plural beoth is evidently formed from the 
Sanscrit second person plural bhawathd : and the Anglo-Saxon beon 
and German bin are the present participle of this Sanscrit verb bhawan. 
The Anglo-Saxon xveorthe and German werde are equally Sans- 
crit ; as, 

Anglo-Saxon, weorthe weorthest weortheth 
German, werde werdest werde 

Sanscrit, wartami % wartasi wartati 

The Anglo-Saxon plural weorthath is formed from the second person 



opinions on the affinities of the Anglo-Saxon tongue, but that I found it a subject which 
could not be accurately handled without a deep consideration of almost every other 
language." 

* As were does not exist in the Mceso-Gothic, it may, perhaps, be merely a corruption. 

t Moeso-Gothic, ist. % I am, I exist. 



Nom. Gen. 


Ac. 


Anglo-Saxon, se thses 


thsen 


seo 




thaet 


thast 


Sanscrit, sah tasia 


tarn* 


sa 




tat 


tat 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 153 

plural of the Sanscrit verb wdrtdthd : but the German first and third 
persons plural seem to be formed from the third person plural of the 
Sanscrit verb wdrtdnti. 

The Angrlo-Saxon wees and English was are the Sanscrit verb, without 
its inflection, wdsdti, he abides. The infinitive wesan and German par- 
ticiple gewesen are evidently the present participle of this Sanscrit verb 
wdsdn. 

The Anglo-Saxon article, also, is derived from the Sanscrit pronoun 
of the third person ; as, 



Anglo-Saxon, N. P. tha 

Sanscrit, te. Eng. they 

Anglo-Saxon, G. P. thsesa 
Sanscrit, tesham 

A knowledge of these circumstances would probably have prevented 
Mr. Turner from observing, — 4i When we consider these facts [the 
formation of the Anglo-Saxon verb and article], and the many Anglo- 
Saxon nouns which can be traced into other languages, it cannot be 
affirmed that the Anglo-Saxon exhibits to us an original language. It 
is an ancient language, and has preserved much of its primitive form ; 
but a large portion of it seems to have been made up from other 
ancient languages." f But, even arguing a priori, from what other 
people could the Anglo-Saxons have derived any part of their 
language ? For it has been perhaps evinced that, from the time the 
Thracians established themselves along the shores of the Hellespont, 
the Propontis, and Thracian Bosphorus, until the migration of the 
Anglo-Saxons into England, the country from the Hellespont to the 
Baltic could have been inhabited by only one race of men, who all 
spoke the same language, or at least dialects derived from the same 

* Anglo-Saxon dative, tham. 

f History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. ii. p. 463. 



154 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

parent tongue. The settlements, also, of Greece in Thrace, the 
Chersonesus, and on the shores of the Euxine, and the subsequent 
conquests of the Romans, all took place long after the Thracian 
language had been completely formed, and were not, therefore, causes 
sufficient to effect any change in it. At least their operation would 
have been confined to the places in which their influence prevailed, 
and it could not have been extended so as to affect the language of 
those tribes, which had previously proceeded to the shores of the 
Baltic. There appears not, consequently, any conceivable manner in 
which the Anglo-Saxon could have lost its original purity, or could 
have received any part of its words or structure from any other than its 
parent language ; a conclusion which is fully confirmed a posteriori by 
comparing the Anglo-Saxon with other languages. 

It is, at the same time, a favourite opinion among the literati of 
Germany, that the greatest affinity exists between the German and 
Persian languages. On this point Adelung thus expresses himself: — 
" But the finding so much German in Persian has excited the greatest 
wonder and astonishment. The fact is undeniable, and the German 
found in Persian consists not only of a remarkable number of radical 
words, but also in particles, and is even observable in the grammatical 

structure This circumstance will admit of two explanations, either 

from a later intermingling of the two languages after they were 
completely formed, or from their both being derived from the same 
mother tongue. The first of these explanations seems probable from 
the position and history of Persia. For it lies in the way which 
all the wild hordes from the higher Middle Asia must have taken 
in order to proceed to the west, so that its language could not have 
remained unaffected by that of the conquering or conquered people. 
It is, also, well known, that the Goths abode for many centuries 
on the Euxine and Caspian seas at the very door of the Persians, 
supported themselves by their savage bravery at the expence of 
their neighbours, and were always endeavouring to establish them- 
selves in the best countries. History even acquaints us that a whole 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 155 

Gothic tribe, which had invaded Persia, became incorporated with 

its former inhabitants Hence the remains of German in Persian 

do not appear like newly arrived strangers, who might be dispensed 
with, but as component parts which are deeply inwove with the 
language itself; so that the second explanation (proposed above) 
receives from them the utmost probability. The Parsi, Zend, and 
Pehlvi are very old languages, as is also the Sanscrit ; and, though 
not sprung from the primitive tongue, they may be derived from 
one of its eldest daughters. The German also, both from itself and 
from history, appears an unmixed, original tongue. The Germans, 
as well as all the ancient western people, migrated from Asia ; and 
although one cannot now ascertain the country which they occupied 
previous to their migration, still there is no reason to prevent its 
being supposed that they might have inhabited Thibet and Persia, 
from which countries Europe has been more than once peopled and 
overrun. The language, therefore, of the Germans, the Slaves, the 
Thracians, the Celts, &c, as well as that of the Persians, might 
have been derived from the same mother tongue, and afterwards 
have become, through time, climate, and institutions, different from 
each other." * 

I have quoted the preceding long passage, because it contains in 
a narrow compass all the errors in etymological research which it is 
the object of this work to expose and refute : for Adelung assumes 
that the world was peopled from Thibet, and hence the above 
reasoning is entirely influenced by the wish of supporting this hypo- 
thesis. For this purpose, geography, chronology, history, and even 
affinity of language, are disregarded, and the same origin is ascribed 
to perfectly distinct races of men. What people, also, are intended 
by the term Goths it is impossible to conjecture ; and it is equally 
difficult to understand how Persia's lying in the way through which 
savage hordes necessarily proceeded to the west (supposing this to 

* Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 277. et seq. 
X 2 



156 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

have been the case), could have in any manner produced an affinity 
between the German and Persian languages. But the slightest ac- 
quaintance with Persian must have prevented Adelung from forming 
such an opinion as the one above quoted : for, when divested of 
Arabic words, never was there a more unmixed and original language 
than the Persian ; and its grammatical structure differs completely 
from that of German. 

Leibnitz, therefore, is perfectly correct in remarking, — " Non potui 
tantum Germanici invenire in Persico quantum Elichmannus Salmasio 
dixit, et unico pene God excepto, caetera fere Germanis assonantia, 
his cum Grascis Latinisque communia sunt:"* for it will be observed 
in the Comparative Table in Part II., that, out of 52 German and 
Persian terms, 41 are common to Greek and Latin. M. Von Hammer 
has, indeed, given, in the sixth volume of the Mines de V Orient, a list 
of 560 Persian words which he considers to be cognate with a similar 
number in the languages of the West. But out of these 560 words 141 
are not Persian, and of the remaining 419 there are 56 only the 
identity of which can be admitted: because the others have not the 
slightest correspondence with the words with which they are compared, 
either in sound or sense ; the only tests, in my opinion, by which 
the correctness of an etymology can be determined. But it will not 
be denied that such Persian words as are found in German, and at 
the same time in Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, must have been derived 
from some common origin ; and that consequently such words merely 
prove that German, also, is connected with that parent language, and 
not that it bears any direct affinitv to Persian. Nor have I been able 
to discover more than eighteen Persian words in German which are 
not equally found in Sanscrit, f On what grounds, therefore, the 
learned men of Germany have been led to suppose that so wonderful 

* Leibnitii Opera omnia, vol. iv. p. 189. 

f The only Persian words, besides those contained in the Comparative Table in Part II., 
which I have been able to identify with words in the languages of the West, are the 
following : — 



THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



157 



and astonishing an affinity existed between these two languages is 
to me inexplicable. * Their grammatical coincidences, also, pointed 
out by Adelung are merely the following: — " The Persian comparative 
ends in ter, as choster, besser ; and the infinitive in den or ten, asgiriften, 
greifen. The imperative is, as in German, the root of the verb, as 
manden, bleiben, man, bleib." f In these examples it will be observed 
that one letter of the Persian terminations is omitted, and consequently 
er and en cannot be admitted to be the same as ter and ten. But the 
slightest examination of Persian grammar must show that it is radically 



alii 


abad 


abode, Eng. 


s }..s» jarrah 


jar, Eng. 


bj*-*i;' 


arasten 


r listen, Ger. 


j&s. jigar 


jecur, Eat. 


AJiJl 


araid 


arrayed, Eng. 


V^r* julab 


julep, Eng. 


<jlO> ! 


arzan 


hirse, Ger. 


ItXa; Khoda 


God, -fiwg 1 . 


i_j.J.Xwi 


ashnud 


nieset, G. sneezeth, E. 


^=i khord 


curtus, Eat. 


^ 


bazad 


irou^sTeu, Gr. 


s^Jj rabudah 


l'obbed, Eng. 


aJL^L 


balakhaneh 


balcony, Eng. 


*^j rajah 


ridge, Eng. 


Aj 


bad 


bad, Eng. 


iXxXilw safalid 


sibilat, Eat. 


JW 


barbar 


barber, Eng. 


Aaaa» sinah 


sinus, Eat. 


q* 


barna 


beam, A. Sax. 


^•jl>»& shaban 


shep-herd, Eng. 


&J 


bala 


bale, Eng. 


j.j.<i sharm 


schara, Ger. 


U»5 J . 


bus 


buss, Eng. 


*.i gham 


gram, Ger. 


2*& 


bahtar 


better, Eng. 


AjjS garid 


greet, Scotch. 


hi 


bapar 


ver, Eat. 


aoL« madah 


magd, G. maid, E. 


y*i 


bil 


beel, Ger. 


i>JL« manad 


manet, Eat. 


82^.5 L 


paludah 


pollutum, Lai, 


j^ marz 


march, Eng. 


£#. 


pari 


fairy, Eng. 


Sj^.0 murd 


myrte, Ger. 


U 


ta 


to, Eng. 


(j^J nargas 


narcissus, Eat. 


Sp 


tarak 


dark, Eng. 


y.&> honar 


honour, Eng. 


_j«\iu 


tondar 


thunder, Eng. 


(i y^^\jt y asm in 


jasmine, Eng. 


a 3 


tig- 


degen, Ger. 







* I have not an opportunity of referring to Adelung's Altesten Geschic/ite der Deidschen 
bis zur Volkerwanderung, in which, he states in the Mithridates, he had examined at length 
the affinity existing between the Persian and German, and had given a list of 221 identical 
words in these two languages : but, judging of German etymologies from what I have 
observed while preparing this work, I am afraid that they are just as visionary as the Celtic. 

f Mithridates, vol. i. p. 277. 



158 THE GERMAN AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 

dissimilar from that of German. * In neither words, therefore, nor 
in grammatical structure do the German and Persian languages possess 
any affinity ; but the cause which has occasioned the introduction of 
words apparently Persian into Greek, Latin, and German will be best 
explained in the two following chapters. 

* In the German language there is an article and genders, and the noun admits of 
several inflections ; but in Persian there is neither an article nor genders, and the noun 
admits of but one inflection. The German adjective has genders, the Persian none, and 
there is no resemblance in their mode of comparison ; as, for instance, P. buzurg, buzurgter, 
buzurgterin ; G. gross, grosser, grosste. The Persian verb, indeed, taking the second person 
singularof the imperative as the root, and excluding the infinitive and participles, has but 
two inflections, like the German ; but it forms four of its tenses, in a manner entirely peculiar 
to itself, by means of the particles mi and ba, and its other tenses and passive voice by 
means of two auxiliary verbs only. It may also be remarked that, although Persian 
delights in the composition of words, yet in the formation of words it differs completely 
from German ; because it admits in a very sparing degree of the sense of the primitive word 
being modified by any change in itself, or by its being compounded with particles. The 
German, on the contrary, seems to possess very few primitive and uncompounded words. 



159 



CHAP. XI. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 



The course of these Researches has at length arrived at that country, 
in which all the hypotheses hitherto discussed concur in placing either 
the original or the temporary residence of that race of men, by what- 
ever name at first distinguished, from whom Europe received its 
population, language, and religion. " It has been shown above," says 
Pinkerton, " that ecclesiastic authors of chief account ever regarded the 
Scythians as the very first inhabitants of the East after the deluge. If 
any reader inclines to look upon the deluge as fabulous, or as at most 
a local event, and desires to learn whence the Scythians came to 
present Persia, he need not be told that it is impossible to answer him. 
With their residence in Persia commences the faintest dawn of history."* 
Wachter observes, — " Quantum sermonis Scythici nobis supersir, non 
aliunde melius et tutius cognoscitur, quam ex lingua Persica, in qua 
magnus est vocabulorum Scythicorum proventus, quorum concentus 
cum nostris tarn admirabilis tamque clarus est, quamvis immensis 
terrarum spatiis interceptus, ut semel audita statim intelligi queant." f 
Pelloutier remarks, — "A l'egard des Perses, ils etoient certainement 
le meme peuple que les Celtes. Pour le prouver, il n'est pas besoin de 
se prevaloir du temoignage d'Ammien Marcellin et de Tertullien, qui 
font sortir les Perses de la Scythie. Henri de Valois, dont l'autorite 
est si grande, pretend que ces auteurs ont confondu les Perses avec les 
Parthes qui, de l'aveu de tous les historiens, etoient Scythes d'origine. 
On en trouvera des preuves encore plus convaincantes dans le cours 
de cet ouvrage. On fera voir que la langue des Perses, leurs coutuines, 
et leur religion ne differoient pas de celles des Celtes." J And Adelung 

* Diss, on the Scythians or Goths, p. 53. 
f Wachteri Glossarium in Praefatio. 
± Histoire des Celtes, torn. i. p. 11. 



160 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

was of opinion that the Germans, the Slaves, the Thracians, the 
Celts, &c, might have all at one time inhabited Persia. 

But, when these different hypotheses are examined, they are found to 
rest on no other grounds than mere gratuitous assumptions, completely 
unsupported, if not directly contradicted, by history, tradition, and 
affinity of language : for no ancient writer, as far as I am aware, 
mentions that the Persians were not aborigines of the country which 
they inhabited when they first became known to the Greeks, nor that 
any migration ever took place from Persia. Because Diodorus Siculus 

merely says, — 'Tiro Js tovtuv tuv \2u<ri\tuv [Zku9uv] ttoWu pev Koci tuv otXXuv 
tuv Kot,TOi7To\i^viBivro)v s9vuv ^sToiycitrd^vca, duo as lAZyiVTctq aTrotKiaq t ysvecr9cci i ti\v 
fjbiv ex. tuv Ao~o~v^uv fjHTctarraBuo-uv &i$ ttjv fxera^v xupotv Tv\q re YWa(pXot,yoviot.q tccti 
tov IIovtov' rr,v Je ek Tv\q Mqdiccq 7rocpot tov Tuva.lv xa.&iSpvvQeto-ocv, v\q rovq Xuovq 

I l ccv^o i ua.Tccq wopatrQvivbiu* But this compulsory expatriation of the 
Medes cannot be considered as one of those migrations by which 
the world was peopled. There seems, also, to be some misap- 
prehension respecting the river Araxes ; for Pinkerton contends 
that " Herodotus himself is a sufficient witness that the Scythians 
did not originate from Scandinavia, but from present Persia ; for he 
tells us, book iv. chap. 11., that they passed the Araxes, and entered 
the Bosphorus Cimmerius. The Araxes, it is well known, is a large 
river of Armenia, running into the Caspian Sea." f Rennell, how- 
ever, has clearly shown that by the Araxes Herodotus frequently 
means the Jaxartes $ : and that this is the river which he intended 
in this place cannot be doubted, because both he himself § and 

* Diod. Sic, lib. ii. c. 90. 

f Diss, on the Scythians or Goths, p. 28. 

% " Herodotus falls into a great mistake respecting the source of the river Jaxartes, which 
he calls Araxes. Strabo, in one place, calls it by the same name ; but he was too well 
informed to fall into the error respecting its souixe." — Geog. of Herod., p. 204. 

§ 'Q,; 8= tcu Ktifw nan tovto to s8vo$ xaTepycHTTO, enedu[i.y)<ieMat<ro-uyeTus m' ecoiJTui wotrjO-ato-Qcu' to 
Se sflvoj tovto, x«i fj.eyct XeysTui sivui x«« «Xx»jiaov, oix.Yjfx.svov 8e nqoi >)</> ts xou ijXtov uvutoXu;, 
•jrsprjv tov Apa£ea> i!OTOLp.ov, avTtov Ss I<rcrr)8ov«JV avBgoov, ej<n Se ol twe$ x«i 2xufi»xov Xeyovvi tovto 
to eSvoj eivai. 'O §£ Aga£>)j XeysTut jx-s^mv xoa sXa.o~o~cov ejv«» tov \o~Tqov. — Lib. i. c. 201, 202. 
But that Cyrus invaded Scythia to the north of Persia, and not Armenia, requires no 
remark to evince. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. Igl 

subsequent writers place the Massagetas to the north of the Jaxartes. 
Pinkerton, also, is mcorrect in stating that Herodotus " mentions the 
Scythae Nomades of the north of Persia to have past the Araxes ; " * 

for his words are simply, ZxvQxg roug vopudovq, oixsovtus ev ry Atriy. That 

the Scythians, therefore, were ever the inhabitants of Persia is an 
assumption that rests on no proof whatever, and Diodorus Siculus, on 
the contrary, expressly says that " the Scythians originally possessed 
a small extent of country, but gradually increasing in numbers, they, 
by their bravery and power, acquired an ample territory, and raised 
their nation to glory and supremacy. They at first dwelt in small 
numbers by the river Araxes, and were despised on account of their 
poverty and ingloriousness ; but one of their ancient kings, being of 
a warlike disposition, and an able general, possessed himself of all the 
mountainous country of Caucasus, the champaign extending along 
the Euxine Sea (nnsuvov) and the Palus Mseotis, and the rest of the 
country as far as the Tanais." f This account seems so probable, 
that, as it is not contradicted by any ancient writer, it ought to have 
prevented the formation of such hypotheses as assume that the 
Scythians were Persians, and the ancestors of the Celts, the Pelasgi, 
or the Goths. 

It cannot, however, be denied that the Persians became known 
to history at so late a period as to have rendered it difficult, if not 
impossible, to ascertain either their real origin or their subsequent 
movements. It may, therefore, be contended that the silence of ancient 
authors is not sufficient to disprove the alleged occupation of Persia 
in remote antiquity by Scythians, or the supposed immigration into 
Europe of people from that country. But conjectures which rest on 
no other grounds than the imagination of the system-maker admit not 
of being controverted ; because there are neither data nor first prin- 
ciples by which their accuracy could be determined. This point, 
however, might have been demonstrated even to the satisfaction of 

* Diss, on Scyth. or Goths, p. 28. 

f Diod. Sic, lib. ii. c. 89. Justin, also, seems to describe Scythia as being situated in this 
same tract of country. 



1(32 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

these system-makers themselves, had not the originality of the present 
language of Persia become also a subject of hypothesis. As, therefore, 
the conjectures respecting the origin and affinity of the ancient and 
present languages of Persia have assumed the appearance of generally 
received opinion, it becomes necessary to enter at some length into 
the examination of this subject : for, as it has been often remarked, 
an erroneous assertion may be easily made in a few words, which may 
require pages for its refutation. 

On this subject the prevalent opinion is that Zend is the most 
ancient language of Persia, which becoming extinct was replaced by the 
Pahlvi, and the latter, in consequence of the conquest of the country by 
the Arabs, by the modern Persian.* But it must appear singular that all 
the arguments adduced in support of this opinion, rest on the assumption 
of a fact which has never yet been proved ; namely, the existence at 
any period in Persia of the two languages which have been named 
Zend and Pahlvi. On the contrary, Anquetil du Perron himself 
acknowledges, with respect to the Zend, — " Nous avons, il est vrai, 
des histoires generates [anciennes] dans lesquelles les Perses trouvent 
leur place, mais qui ne peuvent fournir les details dont une histoire 
particuliere est susceptible ; aussi n'y voit-on rien qui designe quelque 
connoissance du Zend. Les modernes sont aussi peu instructifs 
lorsqu'il est question de cette langue ; a peine en trouve-t-on quelque 
trace chez les Mahometans, et les ouvrages des Parses ne sont pas 
plus satisfaisans sur cet objet. " f But I am not aware that any 
Muhammadan writer has ever mentioned the Zend as a language, and 
every one that I am acquainted with invariably understands the term 
Zend as signifying the book in which Zardusht delivered the precepts 
of his religion %\ for Firdausi says that, when Arjasp king of Turan 

* It is also supposed that the Zend, Pahlvi, and modern Persian were three distinct 
languages, coexisting at some remote period in different parts of Persia. 

f Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc, torn. xxxi. p. 341. 

\ Anquetil du Perron himself remarks, — " Ferdousi, dans le Schah-namah ; 1'auteur 
du Tavarikh Schah-namah ; Mirkond, dans le premier volume de son Roset-eussafa ; le 
Tebkat-Nasseri ; 1'auteur du Mudjizat, et les autres ecrivains Persans parlant de Zoroastre, 
nous disent qu'il presenta a Gustasp le Zend-avesta ,• ils rapportent, d'apres les auteurs Parses, 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. J 53 

took Balkh, every Zend and osta [avesta] were burned ; and even the 
author of the Firhang Jehangiri, the work so generally quoted on this 
subject, thus explains this word, — " Zend is the name of the book 
which Zardusht pretended was sent down to him from the Most 
High." But it is still more remarkable that the Parsis themselves 
do not suppose that Zend was ever the common language either of 
the whole or of any part of Persia ; but merely describe it as the 
sacred language in which Zardusht recorded the precepts of his 
religion.* 

All the speculations, therefore, respecting the antiquity of the Zend 
as a language, and the country in which it may have been spoken, are 
strictly European ; and derive not the slightest support from either 
the traditions of the Parsis, or from any thing which is contained in 
Muhammadan authors. But, notwithstanding, the conjectures of 
Anquetil du Perron, who, from his writings, appears to have possessed 
a very superficial knowledge of Persian and other languages, to have 
been unacquainted with the simplest principles of philology, and to 
have been totally devoid of critical sagacity and sound judgment, have 
been received as sufficient authority for admitting that Zend was the 
most ancient language of the whole or at least of part of Persia : for 
Adelung includes it in his Mithridates, under the head of the language 
of the ancient Medes, and observes, — " Media, named by Moses Madi, 
contains the present provinces of Azerbaijan, Shirwan, Gilan, and 
Mazenderan, and was in latter times named Persian Irak. Of the 
ancient languages spoken in this country, before the modern Persian 
predominated, two are known, the Zend and the Pahlvi, one spoken in 

northern, and the other in southern Media In the Zend some 

writings still exist which have been made known by Anquetil du 
Perron ; and these, when the grounds on which their antiquity are 
maintained are duly considered, will be found to be the oldest works 



que ce livre passoit pour divin, et gardent un profond silence sw la langue dans laquelle il est 
ecrit" — Mem. de VAcad. des Insc. torn. xxxi. p. 345. 

* Even Mulla Firuz, the editor of the Desatir, is of this opinion. 

Y 2 



164 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 



extant, except those of the Hebrews and the poems of Homer. But 
this has been controverted by many, and particularly by the Briton, 
Richardson, who goes so far as to assert that the Zend was invented 
by the Parsee priests, and is merely a monstrous jargon composed 
of the words of all known languages. But such an invention of a 
language is contrary to all probability, and I might even say pos- 
sibility, for no instance of it exists ; consequently it cannot be con- 
tested that the Zend must be considered as a real lano-uao-e, which 
was once actually spoken. When, therefore, one weighs without 
prejudice all that Anquetil and his translator Kleuker have said and 
written in support of the authenticity of the Zend language and Zend 
books, and all that their opponents have with so much acuteness 
advanced to the contrary, one will be obliged to decide in favour of 
their authenticity." * But it cannot be denied that the Zend, if it was 
ever a spoken language, has been so long extinct, that no mention of it 
is to be found either in ancient or Muhammadan writers, and that 
even amongst the Parsees no tradition exists of its ever having: been the 
common speech of Persia. It is also indisputable that the language 
in which the Zendavesta is written has not the slightest pretensions 
to originality ; and that Richardson was perfectly correct in observing 
that " the Zend, so far from having the slightest appearance of one of 
the most regular languages in the world [the Persian], has more the air 
of a Lingua Franca, culled from the dialects of every surrounding 
country ; grouped together with little grammatical propriety ; and 
more pointedly resembling the spells of necromancers, than the idiom 
of a people famed at all times for the melody of their accents." 
Nor has the Zend, as it will be immediately shown, the slightest affinity 
with any known language. As, therefore, the existence of Zend as a 
spoken tongue is not supported by history, tradition, or affinity of 
language, and as even its originality cannot be maintained, on what 
principle of reasoning or of human belief can Zend be considered 
as a language which once actually existed, and which was commonly 
spoken by the inhabitants of the whole or of any part of Persia ? 






* Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 255, et seq. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 



165 



But, had antiquity and universality, as the language of Persia, been 
ascribed to the Pahlvi, this supposition would have received some 
countenance from the loose manner in which this word is used by 
Muhammadan authors ; for Firdausi and other Muhammadan writers 
certainly use this term to designate the ancient language of Persia. 
But it is also applied by them not only to the ancient language, but 
also to the ancient inhabitants, in order to distinguish them from the 
people and speech of Persia of their own times, which had both 
undergone so great a change from the necessary effects of the Arabian 
conquest. Nor was this distinction improper, because the purity of 
both had been greatly affected, and the language spoken in Persia 
four hundred years after that event could no longer be considered 
the same as that which was spoken by the kings and heroes celebrated 
by Firdausi. But to infer from this circumstance that the Pahlvi 
must have been radically dissimilar from modern Persian, is a con- 
clusion which is totally unsupported by any thing which occurs in 
Muhammadan writers. On the contrary, the author of the Firhang 
Jehangiri clearly identifies these two languages, for he thus explains 
this word : " Pahlvi or Pahlvani, the ancient Persian, as Firdausi says, 
If thou do not understand the Pahlvi language, then name the river in 
Arabic the Dijjel ; and again, By me has the hand of eloquence been 
strengthened, for I have completed a work in the Pahlvi language." 

According to Muhammadan authors, therefore, Pahlvi was the 
ancient language of the whole of Persia ; but not one of them explains 
the manner in which it differed from the modern Persian. From the 
long poem, however, of Firdausi it clearly appears that this difference 
consisted solely in the former not having been mixed with Arabic 
words, and in there appearing in it numerous words which had 
become little used or obsolete after the Arabian conquest. On what 
grounds, therefore, could Anquetil du Perron with any justice remark, 
" J'examine maintenant en quelles contrees le Pehlvi avoit cours ; ce 
point discute donnera en meme temps le vrai sens du nom de cette 
langue. Pour cela je suppose la Perse divisee en trois parties ; la 
premiere, berceau du Zend et du genre humain, comprendra la Georgie, 



Iqq THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

l'lran, et FAderbedjan ou la haute Medie. La seconde, allant vers 
le sud, sera composee du Pharsistan et de quelques pays situes entre 
cette province et l'Aderbedjan ; c'est-la que le Parsi avoit particu- 
lierement cours. La troisieme renfermera la Medie inferieure, le 
Dilem, le Guilan, le Kohestan et l'lrak adjemi ; le Pehlvi etoit la 
langue de ces pays meles de montagnes et de plaines." * For that 
such a division of Persia ever prevailed is positively denied by both 
Parsis and Muhammadans, who maintain that Persia has always been 
one single and undivided empire, f Ancient writers, also, mention 
that there never existed more than two kingdoms in Persia ; and, from 
all that can be collected from Herodotus and other authors, it does 
not appear that the inhabitants of Media differed in language from 
those of Persia. But, notwithstanding these obvious objections, 
Adelung observes, — " It appears that the Zend was not used as the 
language of the court or of society, but merely employed for the 
purposes of religion, and there was consequently no opportunity for 
its improvement and refinement. But this was not the case with the 
Pahlvi, which was the language of the people of Lower Media or Par- 
thia, and of the Persian kings, from the accession of the Kaianian 

dynasty, about 600 years B.C. for a period of 900 years The 

ancient Parthia or Lower Media extended from Assyria to the Caspian 
Sea, and comprised the present provinces of Dilem, Gilan, and 
Kohestan ; and, as the princes and people of this country were dis- 
tinguished by their rude bravery, it was called Pahle or Pahlvan, i. e. 
the land of heroes, and its language received the name of Pahlvi." J 
But these remarks are mere gratuitous assertions, unsupported by any 
proof whatever ; and the reception, therefore, of Pahlvi into a history 
of languages is contrary to every principle of historical composition, 
which forbids the admission of a fact until it has been established by 
applicable and adequate testimony. 

* Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc., torn. xxxi. p. 407. 

f For further remarks on the geography of ancient Persia, I beg leave to refer to a paper 
inserted in the third volume of the 1 ransactions of the Bombay Literary Society, entitled 
Remarks on the State of Persia from A. C. 331. to A. D. 226. 

% Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 267. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 267 

As the Zend and Pahlvi, if ever the actual speech of any people, 
have not only become extinct, but have not left the slightest traces of 
their existence in any language which is spoken at this day, it must 
necessarily follow that the fact of their ever having existed at any 
time must depend entirely on the authenticity of the books which 
are said to be written in them. This subject has been very carefully 
examined by Mr. Erskine, who has expressed this opinion respecting 
these books : — " Under these circumstances, it would be in vain to look 
for any authentic account of Zertusht, or of the origin of his sacred 
volume. The Zend-Avesta does not belong to the age of history; 
it remains single in # the Zend tongue ; and we cannot rely on any 
thing recorded by the historians of Zoroaster, all of whom, besides 
being comparatively modern, have allowed their imagination to run 
riot in their accounts of his wonderful works and miracles. Nor is 
there any thing in the remains of Pehlevi literature that can assist us 
in this exigency. Translations from the Zend original of the Vendiddd, 
the Vespered, the Yesht, and Khurda-Avesta of Zertusht exist in the 
Pehlevi tongue. I know of only three other works in that language, 
the Virdf Nameh, a description of the Parsi paradise and hell, ascribed 
to the reign of Ardeshir Babegan ; the JBundehesh, an account of the 
creation, according to the ideas of the Parsis, certainly not written till 
after the Mussulman invasion * ; and the Tale of Ahliez Iddu and the 
Destur Gusk-Perian, which was probably written at a still later period. 
Of the Pehlevi histories and records, of which we have heard so much, 
not a fragment has ever been given to the world ; we may safely say 
that none such exist." j- Mr. Erskine, however, adds in another 
place, — " To me it seems probable, that the Zend-Avesta was compiled 
in the reign of Ardeshir Babegan, the first of the Sasani princes, and 
the restorer or reformer of the old religion." X 

" * This is plain from its conclusion, which alludes to the Mahomedans." 

f Trans, of the Bombay Literary Society,- vol. ii. p. 311. 

% Ibid. p. 315. In the third volume, however, of these Transactions, I have endeavoured 
to show that this supposed restoration or reformation of the Zardushtian religion by 
Ardshir Babagan does not rest on sufficient grounds. 



Igg THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

But the sole authority on which this fact and the authenticity of 
the Zend and Pahlvi books depend, is the traditions of the Parsis. 
Before, however, these traditions can be admitted as testimony, it must 
be satisfactorily proved that the Zend-Avesta and its Pahlvi translation 
actually existed at the time of the Arabian conquest; and that they 
have been carefully preserved until the present day by the Parsis of 
Persia and India. But no such proof has ever been adduced, nor has 
it been yet established that the Parsis of either country possess any 
well authenticated traditions, which ascend uninterruptedly up to that 
event. * On the contrary, the silence of Tabari and Firdausi res- 
pecting them is a strong presumption that they were not invented 
at the time when these writers lived ; though those respecting 
Zardusht seem to have been well known to Muhammad Amir Kha- 
wand, who lived about 450 years after the latter, -f It may, indeed, be 
said that the silence of Tabari is not fully proved, because there is 
only a Persian translation of his history now extant: — but the Shah 
Nameh fully evinces the extraordinary industry with which Firdausi 
collected every circumstance relating to the ancient manners, customs, 
and religion of Persia, which could contribute to the composition or 
embellishment of his wonderful poem. It is also remarkable, that of 
Zardusht himself these two writers have not given any account : 
for Tabari merely mentions him incidentally in these words, — "The 
Moghs have a prophet whom they name Zardusht, who claimed the 
character of a prophet, and established their religion by instructing 
them in the worship of fire ; " and Firdausi, speaking of Gushtasp, 

* On the contrary, that most intelligent traveller, Chardin, has observed, — " Quant a 
l'ancien Persan, c'est une langue perdue ; on n'en trouve ni livres, ni rudimens. Les 
Guebres, qui sont les restes des Perses ou Ignicoles, qui se perpetuent de pere en fils 
depuis la destruction de leur monarchic, ont un idiome particulier; mais on le croit plutot 
un jargon que leur ancienne langue. lis disent que leurs pretres, qui se tiennent a Yezd, 
ville de la Caramanie, qui est leur Piree, et leur principale place, se sont transmis cette 
langue jusqu'ici par tradition, et de main en main; mais quelque recherche que j'en aye 
faite, je n'ai rien trouve qui me put persuader cela." — Voyages en Perse et autres Lieux de 
I'Orient, vol. ii. p. 105. 

f Tabari died A. D. 923; Firdausi, A. D. 1025; and Amir Khawand, A.D. 1497: 
and the conquest of Persia by the Arabs took place A. D. 641. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 169 

says, — " When some time had thus passed, a tree appeared upon the 
earth, which spread its shadow over the royal halls of Gushtasp ; a 
tree abounding in roots and branches, every leaf of which was counsel, 
and every fruit wisdom, (who that eats of such fruit will die for ever?) 
of auspicious production, and its name was Zardusht, the destroyer of 
the wicked rites of Ahriman. He said to the king, I am a prophet, 
and the pointer out of the path that leads to wisdom, &c* .... When 
the king heard from him the precepts of the Bihdin, he approved of 
them, and embraced the new faith." But Firdausi gives no farther 
account of Zardusht, neither of whence he came, nor whither he went, 
and merely relates that the new religion was propagated through the 
world by the exertions of Gushtasp, and still more successfully by the 
victorious arms of his son Isfandiar. 

If, therefore, no proof can be adduced to establish the authenticity 
and antiquity of the Parsi books, it necessarily follows that they 
cannot be received as evidence of the existence and antiquity of the 
languages named Zend and Pahlvi. The opinion, consequently, of 
Sir William Jones cannot be controverted; for he remarks, — "This 
distinction convinces me that the dialect of the Gabrs, which they 
pretend to be that of Zeratusht, and of which Bahman gave me a 
variety of written specimens, is a late invention of their priests, or 
subsequent at least to the Musulman invasion ; for, although it may 
be possible that a few of their sacred books were preserved, as he 
used to assert, in sheets of lead or copper at the bottom of wells 
near Yezd, yet, as the conquerors had not only a spiritual but a 
political interest in persecuting a warlike, robust, and indignant race 

* This passage, and many others which occur in the Shah Nameh, clearly show that no 
Muhammadan bigotry would have prevented Firdausi from making use of the traditions of 
the Parsis had he been acquainted with them. 

In another copy of the Shah Nameh the copyist has not shown so much tolerance, for he 
thus amends this passage : — Gushtasp being seated in full court, " suddenly descended 
from the sky a throne, on which was seated an ancient man, who, rising, proceeded towards 
Gushtasp, while the nobles saluted him. The king said, ' Who art thou ?' he replied, 
' Ibrahim [Abraham] is my name : beneath my steps are the heavens, and from the paradise 
of God am I come,' " &c. 



17() THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

of irreconcilable conquered subjects, a long time must have elapsed 
before the hidden scriptures could have been safely brought to 
light, and few, who could perfectly understand them, must then have 
remained ; but, as they continued to profess amongst themselves the 
religion of their forefathers, it became expedient for the Mubeds to 
supply the lost or mutilated works of their legislator by new com- 
positions, partly from their imperfect recollection, and partly from 
such moral and religious knowledge as they gleaned, most probably, 
among the Christians with whom they had an intercourse." * 

The originality and antiquity of modern Persian have been, also, 
questioned, but on other grounds, by the Baron de Sacy, who has re- 
marked, — " Com me nous ne voyons la litterature Persane jeter quelque 
eclat que sous la dynastie des Samanides,il est tres-naturel de penser que 
le Parsi,s'il existoit effectivement des le temps desChoroes,aeprouve de 
grands changemens dans les trois siecles qui separent les derniers desSas. 
sanides du premier des Samanides. D'ailleurs, si Ton considere l'intime 
structure de Persan moderne, on se convaincra que sa phraseologie et 
son systeme entier de syntaxe se sont formes sous Tinfluence de la langue 
Arabe." f But no opinion can be more erroneous ; because the Persian 
bears not the slightest affinity to Arabic, and never were two languages 
so strongly distinguished by dissimilar properties. In Arabic there is 
an article, in Persian none ; in Arabic nouns have two cases, a dual 
number, and two genders, in Persian they have no dual number, nor 
gender, and only one case ; in Arabic their plural may be formed in 
twenty-two different ways, in Persian in two only. X The verb, it is 
true, has only the same inflections, but by means of two particles it 
acquires tenses which exist not in Arabic ; its tenses have neither dual 
number nor gender as in Arabic ; and a distinct passive voice is formed 
by means of auxiliary verbs, the use of which is unknown to the 

* Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 82. 

f Journal des Savans, Fevrier 1821, p. 75. 

% In Arabic the comparative and superlative of adjectives are formed by prefixing a, as 
akheir, better or best ; and the former is distinguished from the latter by placing certain 
particles after the adjective: but in Persian they are formed by adding one and two 
syllables to the adjective, as bih, bihtar, bihtarin, good, better, best. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. ]7l 

Arabic. * The Persian language is, at the same time, distinguished from 
the Arabic by its extreme regularity ; for in the latter the deviations 
from one common paradigm are numerous ; as the infinitive, for in- 
stance, may be formed in thirty-three different ways, while in Persian 
it invariably ends either in ten or den. The genius, also, of the two lan- 
guages is totally dissimilar: the Persian delighting in compound words, 
inversions, and long flowing periods ; but the Arabic does not possess a 
single compound term, and its syntax admits of scarcely any variety in 
the length or arrangement of a period. The copiousness of the two 
languages is equally distinguished by a peculiar character ; for the 
Persian is rich in ideas, there being scarcely a synonymous term in it, 
while the Arabic, on the contrary, is poor in ideas, but abundant in 
terms for the same object. Such a total dissimilarity, therefore, in the 
grammatical structure of these two languages, must incontrovertibly 
prove that the formation of Persian has not been in the slightest degree 
influenced by the Arabic. 

From the preceding remarks it will perhaps appear that there are 
not any grounds whatever for supposing that Persian f has been de- 
rived from either Zend, Pahlvi, or Arabic ; and it ought, consequently, 
to be concluded, on every just principle of reasoning, that it is actually 
the language which has been spoken from time immemorial in that 
country in which it is found to prevail, or, at least, the manner of its 
introduction into Persia ought to be clearly pointed out, and a 
satisfactorily proved. But, as it cannot be denied that no traditional 
or historical accounts of its origin exist, this subject ought to be 
considered as a mere philological question ; and the same principles 
which regulate the tracing of affinities in other languages ought 
equally to be applied to the Zend, Pahlvi, and Persian. For this 

* There is in Arabic only one substantive verb, but in Persian two; by means of which 
a variety of tenses are formed which are unknown in Arabic. 

f It is scarcely necessary to observe that by this term I mean the modern Persian divested 
of all Arabic words. Several dictionaries of Persian in this state have been compiled ; and 
the Shah Nameh of Firdausi presents a poem of sixty thousand couplets in which Arabic 
words are very sparingly introduced. 

z 2 



172 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

purpose the vocabularies of Anquetil du Perron may be employed, 
as there is no reason to suppose that they were not actually compiled 
for the use of the Parsis themselves, but merely forgeries imposed 
on him by his Parsi instructors, in order to conceal their sacred lan- 
guages. A proof of this arises from the author of the Firhang Jehangiri 
having inserted in the appendix to his work, the composition of which 
was finished in A. D. 1608, upwards of 400 Pahlvi words, 300 of which 
are found in Anquetil du Perron's Pahlvi vocabulary.* 

With respect, therefore, to the language named Zend, Sir. W. 
Jones observes, — " I was inexpressibly surprized to find that six or 
seven words in ten were pure Sanscrit, and even some of their 
inflexions formed by the rules of the Vydcaran [Sanscrit grammar] "f; 
Dr. Leyden conjectures that the Zend may correspond with the 
Suraseni dialect of the Sanscrit % ; and Mr. Erskine remarks, — " There 
can be no doubt in what class of languages the Zend is to be ranked. 
It is altogether Sanscrit." § But etymological resemblances are very 
deceptive ; and a more attentive examination of those, which on a 
first view may appear the more striking, will often evince that the 
fancied similarity does not exist : for the Zend vocabulary, after 
rejecting words inserted more than once, religious terms, and proper 
names, consists of 664 words, and ought, consequently, according to 
Sir W. Jones's opinion, to contain at least 398 Sanscrit words. But 
on examining it I find that it only contains seven Arabic, ninety-three 
Persian, and eighty-three Sanscrit words, with thirty that may be 

* It is, however, impossible to form any opinion with respect to the accuracy of those 
vocabularies, as Anquetil does not seem to have been sufficiently acquainted with the medium 
through which they were communicated to him ; for at least seven of the Zend words 
belong to the dialect of Guzerat, viz., bee, deux ; town, tu ; zeante (janto), connaissant ; 
gnato (nahato), lavant ; te, toi ; kerete (kar/o), faisant ; petsche, derriere : and, what is still 
more suspicious, the signs of the genitive case in Guzerati, no, ne, and also the third person 
singular present tense of the indicative mood of the substantive verb che, are sometimes 
affixed to the end of words. There is even a Turkish word with the Guzerati sign of the 
genitive case aspereno, derem. 

\ Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 83. 

\ Asiatic Researches, vol. x. p. 213. 

§ Trans, of Bombay Lit. Soc, vol. ii. p. 299. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. j^o 

either Persian or Sanscrit ; but, as they are found in a language 
alleged to have been spoken in Persia, they ought to be ascribed to 
the former, and there will then be 123 Persian, and fifty-three Sanscrit 
words only, or rather less than one twelfth of the whole.* 511 words, 
therefore, out of 664 remain which do not belong to either Arabic, 
Persian, or Sanscrit, or to any other known language. As, also, this 
vocabulary was compiled in India by a person no doubt acquainted 
with Persian, it requires to be proved that these Persian and Sanscrit 
words had passed into Zend, or vice versa, while Zend itself was 
actually a language spoken in Persia : for, otherwise, it may be very 
justly concluded that, during a residence of many centuries in India, 
the Parsi priests may have learned many Sanscrit terms from even 
the vernacular dialect of Guzerat, and that they may also have retained 
or acquired many words originally Persian, Until, therefore, these 
objections be satisfactorily answered, it will be admitted that, under 
such suspicious circumstances, the existence of this small number of 
Persian and Sanscrit words in Zend does not prove that Zend is a 
dialect of Sanscrit, or that it ever was actually spoken in Persia. 
While, on the contrary, the impossibility, of referring 511 words, out 
of 664 contained in so small a vocabulary to any known tongue must 
irresistibly lead to a conclusion that this pretended language was 
invented by the Parsi priests, and never actually spoken or written by 
any people upon the face of this earth. 

These remarks apply with even greater force to the Pahlvi. For in 
this vocabulary there are rather more than 800 distinct words, and 
I have added 100 in the Appendix, so that there are 900 Pahlvi words 
for the purpose of comparison with those of other languages : but 
of this number there are sixty-four Arabic, two Hebrew, and thirty- 
five Persian only, while there is neither a Zend nor a Sanscrit term to 

* As assertions relating to etymologies are always unsatisfactory, I have inserted in the 
Appendix a list of such Zend and Pahlvi words contained in Anquetil's Vocabularies as I 
can trace to Persian, Arabic, or Sanscrit, which will at once show whether my calculations 
are correct : but I must object to any etymological torture being applied to these words, 
notwithstanding their defective orthography, and request that they may be allowed to speak 
for themselves without any mutilation of limb or disfiguration of feature. 



1 74 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

be found in this vocabulary. There consequently remain 800 out 
of 900 words, which do not belong to any known language. But Mr. 
Erskine remarks that, " in the Zend and Pehlevi vocabulary, the pro- 
portion of Pehlevi words that correspond nearly or altogether with the 
modern Persian is very great, insomuch as in some pages to have the 
appearance rather of a Persian than of a Pehlevi translation ; while, in 
the Pehlevi and Persian vocabulary, the Pehlevi words that correspond 
with the modern Persian are very few. The latter, it is probable, was 
intended as a glossary of uncommon Pehlevi words for the use of 
persons to whom Persian was familiar, rather than as a complete 
vocabulary of the Pehlevi tongue, and would consequently comprehend 
those Pehlevi words only which required explanation to a Persian, from 
their being remote from his native language. In the Zend and Pehlevi 
vocabulary the Pehlevi words, being used to explain the Zend, appear 
without selection, and consequently we see the Pehlevi language in its 
natural state, in which it visibly approximates to the Persian; a conclu- 
sion that receives confirmation from the analysis of even a single page 
of the Bundehesh, which Anquetil has printed in the original tongue, 
as a specimen of the Pehlevi."* But this page contains, omitting 
proper names, sixty-six distinct words, of which twenty, or not quite 
one third, are Persian; and, of 664 apparently Pahlvi words contained 
in the Zend vocabulary, 350, or more than one half, are Persian. It 
would, therefore, seem much more probable that the explanation of 
the Zend in this vocabulary was all that was required, and that its 
compiler thought himself at liberty to substitute a Persian word 
whenever a Pahlvi one did not occur to his recollection. Had this 
not been the case, it must appear inexplicable how there should be 
350 Persian in a collection of 664 Pahlvi words, while in another 
collection of more than 900 there should be thirty-five only. In the 
first, also, of these collections the Persian words remain in their 
natural state, without undergoing the changes to which they are 
subjected in the other, and many of the Persian words in the one are 
replaced by Pahlvi ones in the other. So far, therefore, from the 

* Trans, of the Bombay Lit. Soc, vol. ii. p. 299. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. tfg 

Pahlvi part of the Zend vocabulary exhibiting a correct specimen of 
that language, a comparison of it with the other vocabulary will at 
once evince that on the latter only ought all opinions respecting the 
Pahlvi language to depend. 

It hence appears that in 664 Zend words 123 Persian only are 
found, and in 900 Pahlvi ones no more than thirty-five Persian; that 
in 900 Pahlvi words not one Zend can be found, and that out of 664 
Zend words 511, and out of 900 Pahlvi ones 800, bear no resem- 
blance to those of any known language. But it must be evident that, 
had Zend ever been the common speech of Persia over which the 
Pahlvi predominated, many Zend words ought to be found in the 
latter, and, had Persian subsequently predominated over Pahlvi, many 
Pahlvi and not a few Zend words ought to be found in Persian ; 
because such has been invariably the effect produced by the 
mother-tongue of every people on the language which may have, from 
whatever cause, predominated over it. With respect to English, for 
instance, Mr. Turner remarks ; — "In three pages of Alfred's Orosius 
I found seventy-eight [Anglo-Saxon] words which have become 
obsolete out of 548, or about one seventh ; in three pages of his 
Boethius I found 143 obsolete out of 666, or about one-fifth ; in 
three pages of his Bede I found 230 obsolete out of 969, or about 
one fifth. The difference in the proportion between these and the 
Orosius proceeds from the latter containing many proper names. 
Perhaps we shall be near the truth if we say, as a general principle, 
that one fifth of the Anglo-Saxon has ceased to be used in English. "* 
Consequently, notwithstanding the Danish and Norman conquests, the 
course of seven centuries and a half, and the astonishing progress in 
civilisation which has taken place during this period, still four fifths 
of the Anglo-Saxon prevail in the English language at this day. 
Neither Tiraboschi, however, nor Pignotti, mentions the proportion of 
Latin words in Italian. I, therefore, took the first 1000 words that 
occur in the ninth story of the fifth day in Boccaccio's Decameron, and 
I found that out of this number 750 were identical with Latin. But, 

* History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. i. p. 444. 



X76 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

from the establishment of the barbarians in Italy under Odoacer king 
of the Heruli, until Dante, when Italian began to assume its present 
form, eight hundred years elapsed *, and yet the Italian has preserved 
at least three-fourths f of that language which was previously spoken 
in Italy. When, therefore, rather more than one sixth of Zend words 
and one eighth of Pahlvi ones, only, can be found in the language that 
prevails in Persia at this day, and when this country has suffered no 
other change of importance than the Arabian conquest, which has in 
no manner altered or destroyed the common speech which was pre- 
viously current, it must be concluded, on every principle of etymology, 
that the Zend and Pahlvi never could have been languages which were 
at any time actually spoken by the inhabitants of Persia. 

This argument, I admit, will not apply to the hypothesis which 
assumes that the Zend, Pahlvi, and Persian were three distinct languages 
which coexisted in different parts of ancient Persia : for, it may be 
remarked, the English will no doubt in course of time predominate in 
Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, without being in the least affected by 
Scottish, Irish, or Welsh ; and such, therefore, may have been the case 
with respect to the Zend, Pahlvi, and Persian in Persia. But this 
division of Persia into three different parts, speaking distinct languages, 
is a mere gratuitous assumption, unsupported by either probability or 
proof; nor, were it even admitted, would it in the slightest degree 
assist in explaining the manner in which the two former languages 
have become extinct, and Persian has remained the sole tongue of the 
existence of which in this country any traces can be discovered. 
Why, also, are the translation of the Zend-Avesta and the other Parsi 

* Tiraboschi, in the commencement of the preface to the fourth volume of his work, 
remarks, — " Molti secoli noi dobbiamo trascorrere in questo tomo ; e dobbiamo tras- 
corrergli senza mai incontrarci in oggetto, dalla cui vista possiam chiamarci pienamente 
contenti. Uomini d' abito, di legge, di lingua, di costumi diversi, ma quasi tutti barbari e 
incolti, Goti, Longobardi, Franchi, Tedeschi, Saracini, Normanni, inondan da ogni parte 
P Italia, se ne contendon traloro, o se ne dividon 1' impero, e la rimpiono in ogni parte di 
desolazione e di orrore." 

f Pignotti observes, — " Si prenda un libro Italiano, e si cominci a leggere, si scorrera 
talora un intera pagina in cui tutte le parole si troveranno d' origine Latina." — Star, delta 
Toscana, torn. ii. Sag. Prim. p. 5. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 



177 



books written in Pahlvi, if Persian had predominated as the common 
speech previous to the Arabian conquest ; or, if not, when did Persian 
become predominant? To this question the answers are various. 
For Anquetil du Perron observes, — " Je place la troisieme [epoque du 
Parsi] sous les princes de la quatrieme dynastie, celle des Sasanides. 
Le Parsi, devenu la langue de la cour, bannit entierement le Pehlvi de 
l'usage familier."* Adelung, also, remarks, — "Under the Median 
princes, the language of the land was Zend and Pahlvi ; but, under 
the dominion of the Sassanian dynasty, the language of the province of 
Fars, which had quietly improved itself, became predominant both in 
the court and in the kingdom, and so completely expelled all the 
other native languages, that none but itself prevailed throughout the 
whole of Persia." f 

But the Baron de Sacy observes, — " Or, sous la dynastie des Sas- 
sanides, c'etoit le Pehlvi que Ton parloit et ecrivoit communement en 
Perse, comme le prouvent incontestablement les inscriptions et les 
medailles. C'est en Pehlvi que Nouschirevan faisoit traduire les 
livres que Barzouyeh avoit rapportes de l'lnde." X But, with respect 
to the last circumstance, it depends entirely on the authority of 
Muhammadan writers, who, as I have before observed, consider Pahlvi 
merely to have been the ancient language of Persia, without affording 
any explanation of the manner in which it differed from the modern 
tongue ; and Firdausi even calls the language in which he composed 
the Shah Nameh Pahlvi. The deciphering, also, of the inscriptions 
and medals depends solely on the assumption that Pahlvi was the 
vernacular speech of Persia during the Sassanian dynasty. An assump- 
tion which ought to have been proved previous to any arguments 
being founded upon it : for, at present, these arguments labour under 
the defect of a vicious reasoning in a circle ; since the language is first 
adduced to support the authenticity of that which is supposed to be 
written in it, whether books, inscriptions, or legends of medals, and 
then these writings are adduced as a proof of the former existence of 

* Memoires de l'Acad. des Insc, vol. xxxi. p. 416. 
f Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 274. 
$ Journal des Savans, Fevrier 1821, p. 75. 
A A 



178 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

the language.* The explanations, indeed, of the inscriptions and 
medals which the Baron de Sacy thinks he has deciphered are cer- 
tainly very ingenious ; but it is merely requisite to read the description 
of the process by which he arrived at these results, in order to perceive 
that the premises are much too unsatisfactory and insufficient to 
warrant the conclusions. For the Baron de Sacy concludes his first 
Memoir with these words : — " De tout ce que j'ai dit dans la seconde 
partie de ce Memoire, il result e, 1° Que les inscriptions en caracteres 
inconnus de Nakschi-Roustam offrent deux genres d'ecriture differens, 
Tun desquels est commun aux trois inscriptions A, N° 1, B, N c 1, et 
C, N° 1 ; et l'autre aux inscriptions A, N° 4, B, N° 4, et C, N° 4 ; 
et que ces deux genres d'ecriture se ressemblent neanmoins es- 
sentiellement dans la forme des plusieurs lettres, de Yaleph, par 
exemple, du mem et du tau. 2° Que le marche de ces deux ecritures 
est de droite a gauche. 3° Que la langue de ces deux classes de- 
scriptions n'est pas la meme. 4° Que presque tous les mots des 
inscriptions A, N° 1, i?, N° 1, et C, N° 1, peuvent etre expliques par 
la langue Pehlvie, ce qui autorise a, les regarder comme des monumens 
de cette langue, ou du moins, d'un dialecte peu different. 5° Que la 
langue des inscriptions A, N° 4, B, N° 4, et C, N° 4, paroit plus 
eloignee des anciennes langues de la Perse que nous connoissons. 6° 
Enfin, que dans ces deux genres d'ecriture les voyelles ne sont point 
exprimees, ce qui les rapproche de la plupart des ecritures de 1' Orient, 
meme du Pehlvi, et les eloigne, au contraire, du Zend, dont le 
caractere est d'etre surcharge de voyelles." f In another Memoir the 
Baron de Sacy remarks, — " J'observerai, avant de finir ce Memoire, 
qu'il est un autre genre de medailles qui portent des legendes en 

* In Dr. Grotefend's attempts to decipher cuneiform inscriptions, the reasoning is not 
only founded on a similar assumption respecting the Zend, but also on these still more 
extraordinary assumptions, that the accounts of Persia given by Grecian writers are per- 
fectly accurate, and that the names ascribed by them to Pei'sian kings are equally correct ; 
although the first of these points remains still to be proved, and the latter is fully disproved 
by its being universally admitted that the Greeks adapted foreign names to their own 
defective alphabet, and that, in this respect, they invariably sacrificed accuracy to their love 
of euphony. 

f Mem. sur Div. Ant. de la Pei'se, p. 122. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 179 

caracteres inconnus, mais differens de ceux que je viens d'expliquer, 
et qui paroissent devoir appartenir aux Arsacides ou aux Sassanides." * 
It hence appears that the characters employed on some inscriptions 
and medals differ from each other ; and that those given by the Baron 
de Sacy differ also from the Zend and Pahlvi letters in which the books 
of the Parsis are written cannot be denied f: but difference of character 
is, prima facie, such strong evidence of difference of language as cannot 
be invalidated, except by proving the contrary by something more than 
mere conjecture. If, also, the characters of two inscriptions lead to a 
conclusion that the language of each is different, on what principle can 
it be supposed that they admit of being deciphered by means of one 
and the same language ? At the same time, if these conclusions be 
correct, there must have existed five or six distinct languages in Persia, 
for mere dialects would not certainly have been employed in inscrip- 
tions ; in which case, on what grounds is it assumed that, for the purpose 
of deciphering these inscriptions, a particular one of these languages 
ought to be used in preference to the others? Such objections as 
these are obvious, but any satisfactory answer to them is not so 
evident ; and, consequently, it cannot be admitted merely on conjec- 
tures, which have not even consistency and probability to recommend 
them, that the language engraved on ancient Persian inscriptions and 
medals is actually Pahlvi : and hence it necessarily follows that this 
supposed decipherment cannot be received as any proof that the 
Pahlvi, if it ever existed, was at any time the common speech of Persia. 

* Mem. sur Div. Ant. de la Perse, p. 201. 

f Sir W. Jones has before observed, — " Assuming, however, that we may reason as 
conclusively on the characters published by Niebuhr, as we might on the monuments them- 
selves, were they now before us, we may begin by observing, as Chardin had observed on 
the very spot, that they bear no resemblance whatever to the letters used by the Gabrs in 
their copies of the Vendidad. This I once urged, in an amicable debate with Bahman, as a 
proof that the Zend letters were a modern invention ; but he seemed to hear me without 
surprise, and insisted that the letters to which I alluded, and which he had often seen, were 
monumental characters never used in books, and intended either to conceal some religious 
mysteries^from the vulgar, or to display the art of the sculptor, like the embellished Cufick 
and Nagari on several Arabian and Indian monuments. He wondered that any man could 
seriously doubt the antiquity of the Pahlavi letters ; and, in truth, the inscription behind 
the horse of Rustam, which Niebuhr has also given us, is apparently Pahlavi, and might 
with some pains be decyphered." — Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 85. 

See, also, Plates E, F No. 1., and F No. 2. 

A A 2 



j gO THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

The preceding remarks, therefore, will perhaps evince that there are 
no grounds for supposing that Zend and Pahlvi ever prevailed as lan- 
guages in Persia ; and I have, no doubt, sufficiently shown that neither 
Celtic nor Gothic could possibly have been the language which was at 
any time spoken in this country. But it is evident that this extensive 
region, possessing every advantage of climate, must have been inha- 
bited from the remotest antiquity ; and that, from its being so remark- 
ably protected by natural barriers from all hostile attacks, a flourishing 
kingdom must have been established in it at a very early period of the 
world. For, as Sir W. Jones has very justly observed, " it would 
seem unaccountably strange that, although Abraham had found a 
regular monarchy in Egypt, although the kingdom of Yemen had just 
pretensions to very high antiquity, although the Chinese in the twelfth 
century before our sera had made approaches at least to the present 
form of their extensive dominion, and although we can hardly suppose 
the first Indian monarchs to have reigned less than 3000 years ago, yet 
Persia, the most delightful, the most compact, the most desirable 
country of them all should have remained until 900 years before Christ 
unsettled and disunited."* But, had such a kingdom existed in Persia, 
and its existence cannot be reasonably doubted, it necessarily follows 
that the people must have spoken one uniform language ; and, as there 
is not the slightest indication in history that Persia was ever occupied 
by a foreign race, or even temporarily subjected, previous to the 
Arabian conquest, to any foreign influence except that of the Greeks, 
it must as necessarily follow that the modern Persian actually existing 
is a dialect of either Arabic or Greek, or that it is, in fact, the very 
language which has been spoken in Persia from time immemorial. 
Because it cannot be denied that the ancient inhabitants of this country 
must have made use of some common speech, and that, amongst a 
people unaddicted to commerce or foreign war, incapable of making 
any material improvements in the degree of civilisation to which they 
had at a very early period attained, and unsubjected to the influence of 
strangers, no conceivable cause can be assigned for any change taking 

* Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 77. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. Igl 

place in their language, after it was once completely formed.* But 
neither Greek nor Arabic words appear in pure Persian, to attest that 
its originality was ever in the slightest degree affected by the languages 
of the conquerors of the land, and, consequently, it must be concluded 
that the pure Persian of this day is, in all probability, the very same 
language which has been always spoken by the people of Persia. 

The Grecian writers, indeed, describe this country to have been 
anciently divided into two distinct nations, which were not united into 
one kingdom until the reign of Cyrus, or about 558 years before 
Christ : but such a division is perfectly unknown to both Parsis and 
Muhammadans, and no word resembling Media is to be found in 
either Zend, Pahlvi, or Persian. This supposition, also, is liable to so 
many objections, arising from the great discrepancies which exist in the 
accounts of Media given by the Greeks, that it cannot, on any just 
principle of reasoning, be received as a well ascertained fact : and, were 
it even admitted, it would merely prove that a language distinct from 
Persian had at one time prevailed in the north-western part of Persia ; 
but it would afford no explanation respecting either the nature of this 
language, or the particular circumstances in which it differed from 
Persian, or the causes which had occasioned its extinction. In dis- 
cussing, therefore, the present subject, the existence or non-existence 
of a kingdom of Media is perfectly immaterial ; because the former 
would in no manner disprove the actual prevalence of Persian in the 
greatest part of Persia, f 

* The supposition, that any people would of themselves change the language which they 
had received from their fathers, and by which alone they could make themselves intelligible 
to each other, is so extravagant and contrary to experience, that this alone ought to discredit 
every hypothesis which is founded upon it. But, in the present case, it is required to be 
believed, that the fifteen millions of inhabitants, which Persia probably contained, first 
spoke Zend, then Pahlvi, and finally the modern Persian ; notwithstanding the self-evident 
refutation of this improbable assumption, which arises from the simple circumstance of there 
not being a single Zend word in Pahlvi, and of there being two thirds more Persian words 
in the former than in the latter. 

f The opinion, however, that Zend was the language of Media must stand or fall with the 
credit which is given to Greek writers ; for the existence of Media, as a distinct kingdom, 
depends solely on their authority. But, if their positive testimony in one case is to be 
received without question, I can see no reason why the negative evidence arising from their 



Ig2 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

The predominance, at the same time, of Persian, as the common 
speech of this land, forms an insuperable objection to the possibility of 
Zend or Pahlvi ever having been the spoken languages of Persia : for 
the use of the latter is supposed to have ceased at the conquest of the 
country by the Arabs ; and nothing is more fully established than that, 
from the decisive battle of Nehavend until the first Persian author *, 
no foreign power except the Arabs entered Persia. If, therefore, the 
Persians had, in this interval of 300 years, changed their language, 
they would, undoubtedly, have adopted that of their conquerors in the 
same manner as they adopted their laws and religion : but, in Persian, 
Arabic always appears perfectly distinct, and the words borrowed from 
it consist solely of nouns, adjectives, and participles, which suffer no 
alteration on being thus naturalised in Persian j- : nor is there, I am 
certain, a single word in Arabic (with the exception of local, juridical, 
and religious terms) which has not a corresponding term in Persian. 

Of the copiousness also of this language, and of its requiring no 
foreign assistance for commanding variety of expression, the Shah 
Nameh is alone a sufficient proof; for in it Arabic words are very 
sparingly used J, and yet no poem abounds in more diversified 



silence ought to be rejected ; and, consequently, as no Greek writer mentions the existence 
in Persia of three distinct nations, speaking three distinct languages, the hypothesis, which 
supposes that Zend, Pahlvi, and Persian coexisted at some time or other in this country, 
must be considered as totally groundless. 

* The battle of Nehavend took place in A.D. 641, and Abu'l Fazl Ahmed, the translator of 
Tabari, died in 946, but at what age I have not been able to ascertain, though he must have 
been advanced in life, as he was vizier to Nuh Ben Nasser one of the Samanich princes. 

f Except, I believe, that in Arabic a noun may sometimes form its plural in the Persian 
manner. Adelung, therefore, is mistaken in stating that Arabic words adopt the Persian 
terminations, as in German the French words complimenteren geniren. Mithridates, vol. i. 
p. 286. 

% To satisfy myself on this point, I examined three different passages of the Shah Nameh, 
consisting of one thousand couplets, and the result, omitting five or six military terms, 
generally repeated, was the following : — 

First 1000 couplets contained 54 Arabic words 
Second 1000 30 

Third 1000 46 

or not quite five words in each hundred verses. But all these words have corresponding 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 



183 



descriptions of all the beauties of nature, and all the various manners, 
customs, sentiments, and actions of man. Firdausi, also, flourished 
350 years after the Arabian conquest, and, notwithstanding, the style of 
his 60,000 couplets is every where sustained, and every where exhibits 
a completely formed and highly polished language. Compare this 
poem with the works of Chaucer and Dante, and it will then incon- 
testably appear that Firdausi wrote in a long established and refined 
language, thoroughly adapted for all the grace and elegance of poetry ; 
while the latter were obliged to compel a colloquial tongue, rude and 
unformed, to express poetical conceptions to which it had never before 
been accustomed. But it is utterly impossible that the Persian could 
have acquired such perfection, had its formation, or even predominance, 
not taken place previous to the Arabian conquest ; because, after that 
event until the accession of Shah Ismail, the first prince of the Sefavich 
dynasty, Persia continued to be divided into a number of inde- 
pendent states, which would have completely prevented the uniform 
formation and general adoption of one common language. 

The opinions, however, respecting the origin of Persian and the time 
when it became predominant, are as various as it might naturally be 
expected they would be, when they are all founded on mere con- 
jectures, in direct opposition to the plainest principles of probability 
and etymology. For Anquetil du Perron remarks, — " Je la suppose 
d'abord pure et sans melange d'Arabe, et je dis que le Parsi, pris dans 
ce sens, vient du Zend et non du Pehlvi. . . . Sorties toutes deux d'une 
meme mere, le Zend, il est naturel qu'elles aient des traits de famille, 
et quelque chose malgre cela qui les differencie."* Sir William Jones 
observes, — " From all these facts it is a necessary consequence, that 



terms in Persian, which are much more frequently used in this poem ; and, consequently, 
the use of the Arabic words was not absolutely necessary, though they have been employed, 
probably, for variety, or for facilitating the versification. I recollect, indeed, three Arabic 
words only, viz. kalb, the centre of an army, naal, a horseshoe ; and tank, an ornamental 
collar, which Firdausi uses in exclusion of the corresponding Persian terms. 
* Mem. de l'Acad. des Insc, vol. xxxi. p. 413. 



184 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

the oldest discoverable languages of Persia were Chaldaic and Sanscrit ; 
and that, when they had ceased to be vernacular, the Pahlavi and Zend 
were deduced from them respectively, and the Parsi either from the 
Zend or immediately from the dialect of the Brahmans." * And 
Adelung expresses a still more circumstantial opinion, — " Parsi, this 
is the name of the people and language of the present southern 
province Fars, a plain and fertile land under a warm and smiling sky. 
Before Cyrus, and even at his time, it was principally inhabited by rude 
nomadic tribes ; but afterwards it became the metropolis of the 
kingdom, and the seat of Median refinement and luxury. The cultiv- 
ation of its language succeeded, which, gradually acquiring predom- 
inance, became, under the Sassanian dynasty, the language of the 
court and of public business, and in time surpassed all its sisters in 
softness, richness, and refinement." f 

But, had these and other writers, instead of drawing fancy-pictures 
from their own imaginations, merely submitted to the trouble of care- 
fully examining the Persian language as it appears in the Shah Nameh, 
they would themselves have been convinced that it is not derived from 
either the Zend or the Pahlvi, and that it bears not any affinity 
whatever to either J : because the slightest examination of it will show 
that its complete originality admits not of a doubt; for its grammatical 
structure is peculiar to itself, and it contains no foreign words except 

* Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 83. 

f Adelung's Mithridates, vol. i. p. 274. 

% Richardson very justly remarks, — " Zend [and he might have added Pahlvi] appears 
not to bear the most distant radical resemblance to the modern dialect of Persia ; a circum- 
stance which all observation declares to be impossible, had it ever existed as an ancient 
Persian idiom. No convulsions of government, no efforts of the learned, can ever so alter 
a language as to deface every line of resemblance between the speech of the present day 
and that of even the remotest ancestry ; nothing but the absolute extirpation of the 
aboriginal natives can apparently accomplish so singular a revolution. If we look into the 
languages of modern Europe, we shall discover every where the strongest features of their 
Celtic or Gothic original, amidst all the refinement of Roman and Grecian embellishment. 
If we examine the dialect of the modern Greeks, notwithstanding their slavish subjection to 
the despotism of the Turks, we shall find the corruption but slightly disguises the original 
tongue." — Diss, prefixed to Persian Diet. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. Jg5 

Sanscrit.* On what grounds, therefore, can it be supposed that it is 
derived from any other language ? To this obvious objection it must 
be evident there can be no answer ; for, if peculiarity of grammatical 
structure and purity of words do not constitute an original tongue, there 
can be no first principles by which the tracing the affinity of languages 
can be regulated. But the consecutive extinction, amongst a people 
never conquered by foreigners, of two languages, and the formation of a 
third perfectly distinct from these two, are phenomena which have never 
yet been witnessed, and which, it may safely be pronounced, are utterly 
impossible. A hypothesis, therefore, which rests on such an absurdity 
as supposes that Zend was first spoken in Persia, then Pahlvi, and 
finally Persian, might appear undeserving of refutation, had it not 
received the support of several distinguished writers. Nor is the 
hypothesis which supposes these languages to have coexisted in this 
country less absurd : because that part of Persia which spoke Pahlvi is 
directly interposed between those parts in which Zend and Persian are 
conjectured to have prevailed ; and yet it is contended that Persian is 
derived from Zend, without adverting to the obstacle which these 
system-makers had themselves erected, and which completely pre- 
vented such a communication taking place between Media and Fars, as 
would have admitted of the latter receiving any part of its language 
from the former. The complete improbability, therefore, if not im- 
possibility of such suppositions must irresistibly lead to the simple and 
rational conclusion, that the pure Persian of the present day is not only 
the very language which was spoken in the royal halls of the last 
Sassanian prince, but also that which has prevailed from the remotest 
antiquity throughout the whole of this delightful country, f 

* The few Greek words that now occur in it were clearly introduced from the Arabic ; 
and, after the above remarks, it will probably be admitted that the Persian words in Zend 
and Pahlvi have passed from the former into the latter, and not from the latter into the 
former. 

f This conclusion might have been supported by adducing the words given as Persian in 
ancient writers, had they not, unfortunately, been so disfigured by their orthography as to 
render it impossible to identify them ; though they undoubtedly exhibit a much greater 

B B 



286 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

There is, at the same time, another objection, already made by 
Richardson, to the derivation of Persian from Zend, which has 
not received that attention to which it is justly entitled ; for it is 
undeniable that there are certain alphabetical sounds peculiar to 
every nation, the proper pronunciation of which is unattainable by 
foreigners. Supposing it, therefore, possible that any people should 
themselves change their mother tongue, it is self-evident that they 
could not acquire, by mere intuition, a knowledge of unknown sounds 
and the capability of pronouncing them. But the harsh texture of 
the Zend is perfectly incompatible with the genius of Persian 
pronunciation, or, indeed, with the facility and rapidity of utterance 
which are the invariable characteristics of every language which has 



resemblance to Persian than to Zend or Pahlvi. The following, however, may be quoted 
as in some degree confirmatory of the opinion above expressed : — 

ganze% ,*sv : s (ganj), treasure. 

ahastaran a , (j^jU**' (asteran), mules. 

hega b *^.\yL (Jchajeh), eunuch. 

i u,a ? T, X w § a c > jy^ ^r" ( n ^rd- kfior), man-eater. 

TrupvSov* read xupv§ov, t-^y-sl^ (kah-rub), straw-attracting, i. e. amber. 

aiirra x°P u c j j^ «\**« (sqfid-khar), white-thorn. 

xvgov d , jj± {Jchur), the sun. 

$ziyuve; e , (^Ifsi (dihgari), the head man of a village. 

<Tuqa.ira.qa f , ^j m, (sari-bur), head-cutter. 

uvamc, f , <W>UI (andhid), the planet Venus. 

a^a§a f , j,j\ (azar), fire, a pyrseum. 

xuqla f , $j5" (kord), brave, warlike. 

traXavYjv s read <ra.Xa.gyiv, j^w (sala?*), a leader. 

hypobarus h , jb v>^ (Jchub-bar), ra «y«8« tpepwv. 

The following passage, also, of Pliny may be translated by means of Persian, so as to 
retain the point which seems intended : — " Ultra sunt Scytharum populi ; Persae illos 
Sacas in universum appellavere, Scythas ipsi Persas Khorsakas." ' i. e. The Persians call 
the Scythians dogs, and they, in return, call the Persians dog-eaters. k 

a Bocharti Chal., Jib. i. c. 15. b Esther, c. ii. v. 3., in the Septuagint tb ewo&%$>. 

c Ctesias in Indicis. d Plut. in Artax. c Polybius. f Strabo. 

s Procopius. h Plinius, lib. xxxvii. c. 2. 

' Plinius, lib. vi. c. 17. k From Ju* (sag), a dog, and^~; (khor), an eater. 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 



187 



been actually employed by a civilised people, as the medium of 
colloquial intercourse. For instance, such words as vekanvaroesh, 
veiaosetched, gueouastrieoereze, karschouetched, frekereioesch, reotcherg- 
hanm, aperenaeokenanm, bameneouas, decoucied, ickhschteschtche, ictheou- 
cante, azoanleouclesch, iaongliieouerete, peraontiao. These and other 
Zend words have not the most distant resemblance to Persian, as the 
reader will himself observe on referring to the Comparative Table in 
Part II. Had, also, the latter language been derived from the 
former, the numerous Sanscrit words that are found in Persian 
ought to have undergone the same changes which they exhibit in 
Zend : but, on the contrary? they have suffered less alteration, than 
that to which they would have been subjected had they passed into 
any of the vernacular dialects of' India. For example, S. shubha, 
P. khub, Z. ehobie ; S. rochanam, P. roshan, Z. rotchenghem ; S. nara, 
P. nar, Z. neresch ; S. bhima, P. bim, Z. bienghe. But, out of 176 
Sanscrit words found either in Persian or Zend *, there are thirty only 
which are common to both these languages : a circumstance that 
strongly proves the impossibility of Zend having been the primitive 
language from which Persian was derived ; because, in that case, the 
latter ought to contain more Sanscrit words common to the former, 
and Zend itself ought to contain a greater number of such words than 
the Persian. 

The pure Persian language, however, is not entirely original, 
because it contains at least 260 Sanscrit words, but, with this 
exception, not another foreign term can be discovered in it. But 
the peculiarity of its grammatical structure evinces that it cannot 
possibly have been derived from Sanscrit ; for this language 
distinguishes the cases of nouns and tenses of verbs by inflections, 
and delights in forming its words by various modifications of the 
primitive, or by its composition with particles, f The Persian, on 
the contrary, employs prepositions and auxiliary verbs for the first 

* See Appendix, No. I. 

f The suffixes and affixes used in Sanscrit for this purpose amount to 958, and in Persian 
they do not exceed twenty. 

B B 2 



188 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

purpose ; and admits in a very sparing degree of any modification 
of the primitive. The formation, also, of four tenses of the verb 
by means of particles is peculiar to itself; and it partakes of the 
Arabic grammatical system, while it differs from the Sanscrit, in 
affixing parts only of the pronouns to the noun or verb with which 
they are placed in construction. The Persian, at the same time, 
is dissimilar from the Sanscrit, in having neither dual number nor 
genders, and in its adjectives being indeclinable. 

But no conceivable cause can be assigned for such radical 
differences, had the grammatical structure of Persian ever been the 
same as that of Sanscrit ; because experience sufficiently proves 
that conquest alone can effect any material change in language, 
and that even its influence is not powerful enough to produce a 
complete alteration in the grammatical forms to which a people has 
been long accustomed. As, therefore, there is no indication in 
tradition or history that a nation speaking Sanscrit ever conquered 
Persia, it must be admitted that its grammatical structure is alone 
sufficient to demonstrate that Persian is not indebted to that language 
for its origin. But the Sanscrit words which are still discoverable 
in Persian are much too numerous, and expressive of too great a 
diversity of ideas, to sanction the supposition, that they could have 
been introduced into it by mere intercourse, whether hostile or 
commercial, between the Persians and a people speaking Sanscrit. 

So far, therefore, as relates to the Hindus, these remarks of Sir 
W. Jones would appear to be well founded, — " So that the three 
families, whose lineage we have examined in former discourses, had 
left visible traces of themselves in Iran [Persia] long before the 
Tartars and Arabs had rushed from their deserts, and returned to 
that very country, from which, in all probability, they originally 
proceeded, and which the Hindus had abandoned in an earlier age, 
with positive commands from their legislators to revisit it no more. 
I close this head with observing, that no supposition of a mere 
political or commercial intercourse between the different nations 
will account for the Sanscrit and Chaldaic words, which we find in 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 



189 



the old Persian tongues : because they are, in the first place, too 
numerous to have been introduced by such means ; and, secondly, 
are not the names of exotic animals, commodities, or arts, but those 
of material elements, parts of the body, natural objects and relations, 
affections of the mind, and other ideas common to the whole race 
of man." * Had, however, the original inhabitants of Persia been 
Hindus, the people who remained in it must have spoken precisely 
the same language as those who migrated from it, and the colony 
must either have retained this language, or adopted a new one. 
In the first case, consequently, Persian ought even at this day to 
contain a greater number of Sanscrit words, and to exhibit a 
grammatical system nearly similar to that of Sanscrit ; and, in the 
other case, though Sanscrit might retain many terms common to 
Persian, it ought at the same time to exhibit distinctly its mixed 
origin : but, on the contrary, Sanscrit is the purest of languages, as 
it does not contain a single exotic word, and, while the Sanscrit 
grammatical system is easily identified in Greek, not a trace of it 
can be discovered in Persian. 

That part, therefore, of Sir W. Jones's hypothesis which supposes 
that the aborigines of Persia were Hindus is untenable ; but it is 
equally evident that a people speaking Sanscrit must have at some 
time not only inhabited this country, but have also possessed such 
influence in it as could have occasioned the introduction of so many 
words of their own tongue into the vernacular language. As, also, 
fifty-five of the Sanscrit words found in Persian are equally found 
in Greek, it must necessarily follow that they had passed into Persian 
one or two centuries before the poems of Homer were written, because 
at that time the Greek language appears to have been completely 
formed. But there is no indication in history, or in Sanscrit works, 
that the Hindus ever made any foreign conquests ; and the contrary 
would appear most probable, from the great antiquity of those 
institutions which prevent a Hindu from leaving for any cause the 
land of holiness. The establishment in Persia, therefore, of a people 

* Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 83. 




X90 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

speaking Sanscrit must evidently have preceded their entrance into 
India, and, if not aborigines of the country, they must necessarily 
have immigrated into it from some other kingdom. Thus, again, the 
conjecture irresistibly presents itself, that this people speaking 
Sanscrit could be no other than a numerous colony which had 
migrated from Babylon on its conquest by the Ninus of Herodotus, 
part of which established itself in Persia and part proceeded on to 
India. 

Nor, if this conjecture be admitted, can it seem improbable, from 
the wide-spread fame of the Chaldeans, that this colony should be 
enabled to improve the Persians in arts and civilisation, and thus to 
occasion the introduction of many Babylonian or Sanscrit words into 
the language of Persia : for the similar introduction of Latin words 
into all the dialects of Celtic now existing, and of Sanscrit into the 
vernacular dialects of India, sufficiently shows that the conquest of a 
country is not the only means by which its language may become 
affected by foreign influence. It may however, be objected that, in 
these instances, this influence prevailed in consequence of a new 
religion having been propagated in the foreign language ; and that the 
universal voice of antiquity attests that the religion of Persia was 
totally dissimilar from that of India., But it must be recollected that 
the earliest writer who has given a description of the Persians 
flourished so late as 450 years B. C, and, consequently, that his 
authority cannot determine what the popular faith of the Persians may 
have been 800 years before his time. All accounts, also, ancient, 
Parsi, and Muhammadan, concur in ascribing to Zoroaster, or Zar- 
dusht, the introduction of a new religion into Persia. Hence, it may 
be reasonably concluded, from the systems of belief that existed in 
the neighbouring countries, that the popular faith subverted by- 
Zoroaster was idolatry ; and that his great merit must have consisted 
in withdrawing the Persians from the worship of idols, and in im- 
parting to them juster notions of the Supreme Being. 

Although, also, the religion of Babylonia was no doubt idolatry, this 
colony might have introduced, as in India, various alterations into the 



THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. ^91 

system of popular faith which might have then prevailed in Persia. 
The memory even of one remarkable circumstance, the institution of 
caste, has been preserved by Muhammadan writers, which identifies 
the ancient Persian religion with that of the Egyptians and Hindus, 
and thus renders its common origin almost demonstrated. For 
Tabari, in his account of Jemshid, relates, that " he divided the people 
into four classes, one consisted of soldiers, another of learned men, 
another of scribes and artizans, and another of agriculturists : and he 
commanded each class to follow their respective occupations, the 
agriculturists to reside in the country, the scribes to exercise the office 
of magistrates, the soldiers to attend at his gate, and he placed the 
learned men over the three other classes, and commanded them to 
take care that each class pursued its own occupation." These words 
evidently show that this description depends not on any account of 
a similar institution in India which Tabari might have heard of*, 
but must have been derived from some tradition preserved in Persia. 
No other traces, however, of the ancient religion of the Persians 
previous to Zoroaster can now be discovered. But this tradition, 
supported by the irrefutable testimony of language, must tend to 
render it highly probable that a colony, similar in all respects to that 
which introduced the Brahminical religion into India, was also about 
the same time established in Persia, and that both these colonies 
proceeded from one and the same country, the ancient Babylonia. 

But, in whatever manner the cause of the existence of Sanscrit 
words in Persian may be explained, it is undeniable that except them 
no other foreign terms can be found in this language ; and, con- 
sequently, its purity and originality demonstrate that neither Scythians, 
Celts, Pelasgi, or Goths ever inhabited Persia. It hence, also, appears 
that the words in Persian which seem to be cognate with terms in 
Greek, Latin, and the Teutonic dialects, have been principally derived 

* It is to be remarked that Tabari was born in A. D. 838, and that the Muhammadans 
never made any successful attack on India until Mahmud of Ghoznin in A. D. J 000. Nor 
does there appear to have existed any intercourse between India and Bagdad, which could 
have enabled Tabari to acquire any knowledge of the institutions of the Hindus. 



192 THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE. 

from one common origin, the Sanscrit ; and that the few * which cannot 
be traced to this source are not sufficiently numerous to invalidate this 
conclusion ; because neither geography, chronology, nor history 
warrants the supposition that they could ever have passed from these 
languages into Persian, though it is not possible to point out the 
manner in which they may have passed from the latter into the 
former. The existence, at the same time, of 265 Sanscrit words in 
Persian, most fully evinces that Pahlvi could not have been the 
common speech of Persia at the time of the Arabian conquest ; for, 
after that event, the state of the country rendered the introduction 
into Persian of so many Sanscrit words expressive of such a diversity 
of ideas utterly impossible. Nor, when the antiquity of the Hindu 
institutions is considered, does the coexistence of three distinct 
languages in Persia, and the introduction of such numerous foreign 
terms into one of these only, appear in the least more probable. 
To suppose, indeed, a colony, so powerful as to occasion so many 
words of its own tongue to have passed into the vernacular language 
of the whole of Persia, to have been established in the province of 
Fars and its dependencies only, at least 1200 years B. C, is an opinion 
much too absurd to be maintained by any person. These Sanscrit 
words, therefore, and the remote period at which they must have been 
introduced into Persian, must alone be sufficient to demonstrate that 
the people of Persia have always spoken but one and the same mother 
tongue ; and, consequently, affinity of language, the most indisputable 
of testimonies, completely disproves the supposition that Persian is the 
same language that was spoken by the Scythians, from which it has 
been conjectured that the Celtic, Pelasgic, and Gothic have been 
derived. 

* I have inserted in the preceding Chapter such as I have been able to discover, amount- 
ing to forty-one in number. 



193 



CHAR XII. 

THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

The existence of more than 900 Sanscrit words in the Greek, Latin, 
Persian, and Teutonic languages, incontestably proves that the people 
speaking these tongues must have been at some time intimately 
connected together ; and the poems of Homer equally prove that this 
intercourse must have taken place at least nine hundred years before 
the Christian era. It cannot, however, be supposed that the Hindus 
received these words from the Greeks, Romans, Persians, or Thracians, 
and it must consequently follow that the latter received them from 
the former ; or that the languages of all these people, so widely 
separated from each other when they first became known to history, 
were derived from one common origin. But to this last conclusion 
the perfect originality of Sanscrit forms an insurmountable objection : 
for Sir W. Jones has with the greatest justice observed that " the 
Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful 
structure ; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, 
and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them 
a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of 
grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident ; so 
strong, indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, 
without believing them to have sprung from some common source, 
which, perhaps, no longer exists." * It is, therefore, the structure of 
Sanscrit which so peculiarly distinguishes it from other languages, 
and which impresses on it a character of originality which cannot 
be disputed ; for it contains no exotic terms, and, though I have 
before observed that its roots are evidently the work of grammarians, 
and not a constituent part of the language, still its words show that 

* Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 26. 

c c 



194 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

they have been all formed solely by the people who spoke it, according 
to some well known principle. * 

These roots, indeed, are a strong proof of the great diligence with 
which Sanscrit has been subjected to grammatical rules j but, as they 
are merely monosyllables consisting of the radical letters which com- 
pose the words that are derived from them, and have in themselves 
no distinct meaning, it is evident that they must have been formed 
long after the origin of the language. The suffixes and affixes, also, 
employed in the formation of derivatives, are undoubtedly nothing 
more than a classification by grammarians of such letters and syllables 
of actually existing words as could not be comprised in these roots. 
Such an analysis, however, of Sanscrit could not possibly have taken 
place until the language was completely formed, and even perhaps 
not until it had ceased to be a spoken tongue. The innumerable 
Sanscrit works on philology, at the same time, show that the present 
perfection of its grammar has been the result of a long consideration 
of the subject, and that the multifarious rules which it exhibits could 
never have been of any practical use to all classes of men ; but, when 
they are understood even superficially, they fully justify this remark 
of Mr. Forster, — " What hopes would the unremitted toil of a pro- 
tracted life, even of one endowed with the intuitive genius, the all- 
embracing faculties of a Sir W. Jones hold out, of attaining such an 
incredible language, was not every step directed by etymological rules, 
at once general, simple, and comprehensive?" f These rules relate 

* It is, for instance, sufficiently evident that bkara, that which supports; bkarata, a 
servant ; bharanium, wages ; bharaniu, a master ; bharatha, a king ; bharta, a husband ; 
bharia, a wife ; bhara, a burden ; bhrita, hired ; bhriti, wages ; bhriij/a, a servant, are all 
cognate words with the verb bibharti or bharati, he supports, maintains, or bears : but no 
other person than a grammarian would have thought of deriving all these words from the 
monosyllable bhri. 

-f- Dedication to his Sanscrit Grammar. Mr. Forster had just before observed that the 
roots amount to about two thousand four or five hundred : — " Each of these roots admits 
of twenty-five or six of the suffixes termed kridantas, and forms as many verbal nouns, 
participles, and the like, that is, above sixty thousand ; these roots take likewise one or 
more of the particles as prefixes and become new roots, with a different signification, in 
which state they also receive the above kridanta suffixes, and, consequently, form an equal 
number of nouns with each particle. 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. jg^ 

to the fixed application of 958 increments to 2,500 roots ; but it must 
be obvious that, though this incalculable means of composition might 
still further add to the multitude of Sanscrit words, and might define 
the minutest modification of the same idea, it could not increase the 
copiousness of the original ideas which the primitive words denoted. 
It is not, consequently, either in the variety or comprehensiveness of 
expression that the Sanscrit surpasses the Greek and Latin, because 
in these respects it is inferior to each of them, but in the phi- 
lological beauties of originality, and the synthetical precision of its 
structure. 

It is not, however, indispensable that a language should admit of 
the majority of its words being decompounded and traced up to 
simpler elements ; because the Persian evinces that a very copious 
language may be formed without the assistance of modifying the 
primitive by means of suffixes : but, when the whole frame and 
analogy of the speech of any people, as that of the Greeks and 
Romans, prove beyond a doubt that many of the words exist not 
in their simplest state, it must be concluded that composition had 
been essential to its formation j and, whenever, therefore, these simpler 
elements cannot be discovered in the tongue itself, it as necessarily 



" The whole of the above roots are capable of receiving five modifications, most of them 
eleven, and form causals, desideratives, repetitives, causal desideratives, and so forth, all of 
which admit of the foregoing verbal suffixes, and most of them of being preceded by the 
particles. 

" And lastly, these roots become verbs, taking either the active form, called the parismi 
pad, or the middle form, denominated atmane pad ; they may likewise receive the above 
five or eleven modifications of causals, &c, in their capacities of verbs, and may be likewise 
preceded by the particles. All nouns may become verbs, by the addition of a class of 
suffixes called < lid^hu.' All roots, besides, admit of the passive voice. 

" Every verb has ten tenses in each form, that is, active or middle, and also the passive 
voice ; each tense has three numbers, and each number three persons. 

" Every noun admits of a variety of the suffixes termed ' tadd y hita,' as do the pronouns, 
cardinal numbers, the simple affirmative adjectives, and those observed to be of doubtful 
origin. 

" Every substantive has three numbers, and eight inflections in each, and every adjective 
has three degrees of comparison, three genders in each, and the cases and numbers like 
substantives." 

cc 2 



196 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

follows that it is not an original one, but derived from some other 
language, It is in this respect that Sanscrit differs so materially 
from Greek and Latin ; for, as the labours of the Sanscrit grammarians 
have proved, it admits of being completely analysed by merely 
reducing its compound words to certain simple elements which exist 
in the language itself: but the Greek and Latin sufficiently prove 
that this could not have been the case had the Sanscrit been derived 
from any other language * ; for they contain many words that admit 
not of analysis, and the irregularities that occur in their grammatical 
systems evince that they have not been formed according to any lead- 
ing and uniform principles. When, therefore, these circumstances are 
considered, it would seem irresistibly to follow that Sanscrit itself is 
that primitive language from which Greek, Latin, and the mother 
of the Teutonic dialects were originally derived. 

This conclusion would be conformable to the opinion of the Hindus; 
for they believe that India was the part of the world first peopled, and 
their sacred books contain accounts of many emigrations from it in all 
directions. They, consequently, would find no difficulty in explaining 
the cause which has introduced Sanscrit words into the languages of 

* M. Klaproth, indeed, remarks that " the Sanscrit, which is generally considered as 
so old a language, betrays in itself every appearance of recent formation, and is, in truth, a 
remarkably modern language^ the newness of which is disguised and concealed by its roots." 
— Asia Potyglotta, p. 45. But, as he has not explained on what grounds this oracular 
observation rests, I cannot form any conjecture respecting the reason which may have led 
him to such a conclusion. Like other writers, however, M. Klaproth seems to allow his 
opinions to be influenced entirely by a favourite hypothesis ; for otherwise he would scarcely 
have made the following remarks : — " The great similarity between the languages of this 
people [the Indo-Germanic] has often induced antiquarians to derive them from one 
another. This is ever the case with languages. At one time all languages were derived 
from the Celtic of which we know nothing ; at another time they were all daughters of 
German or Greek ; and at present their origin must be sought for in Persia or India, where 
it is as little likely to be found as at Antwerp, which it has been attempted to identify with 
Agyrta. It is a singular idea to suppose that languages like animals have sprung and been 
procreated from one another ; but it is to be wished that the notion of derivation should be 
given up, and that all languages related to each other should be considered as sisters, 
whose parent is unknown." — Asia Potyglotta, p. 43. "That any person writing on the 
affinity of languages should make such remarks as these must appear most extraordinary, 
but that they are perfectly unfounded these Researches will perhaps fully evince. 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. I97 

other people, as they would ascribe it to their having been descended 
from the Hindus, and to their having preserved words of their 
primeval tongue, although they had forgotten the civil and religious 
institutions of their progenitors. It is, however, difficult to fix the 
original boundaries of India ; because the Hindus describe it as having 
been bounded on the -east and west by the sea, the land gradually 
contracting until it terminated in a point on the south, and on the 
north by the Himalayan mountain, which extended in a semilunar 
form from sea to sea. The ocean thus sufficiently marks the east, 
west, and southern boundaries ; but neither the position of the 
Himalayah, nor of any chain of mountains connected with it, will 
coincide with the Hindu geography : but the southern extremity of 
the Himalayah so nearly approaches the upper and eastern part of 
the Bay of Bengal, as to answer exactly enough to the description of 
the Hindus, and the western extremity may be sought for in the 
mountains of Baluchistan, extending to the Arabian Sea, while the 
northern boundary is marked by the Hindu Cosh and the mountains 
branching from it.* The ancient land of the Hindus would thus 
comprise the whole of present India, with Butan, Nepal, Cab ul, 
Kandahar, and the greatest part of Balkh : but the Hindus say that 
the northern parts have been long occupied by barbarians, and that 
the northern limit has in consequence been the Attack from a period 
which they cannot specify. 

On this point no satisfactory information is derived from ancient 
writers, as they all seem to follow Herodotus in describing the country 
to the west of the Indus, as forming part of the kingdom of Persia. 
Strabo, however, after considering different authorities, states this to 
be his opinion ; — " The Indus was the boundary of India and Ariana, 
and the Persians possessed the country lying to the west of this river ; 
but, subsequently, the Indians held great part of Ariana, having taken 

* For the geography, and the Hindu legends respecting the Hindu Caucasus, see 
Wilford's paper in the sixth volume of the Asiatic Researches. 

See also, for the northern parts of ancient India, the map prefixed to Elphinstone's 
Cabul, and the memoir of its construction. 



198 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

it from the Persians." * It appears, also, from Firishtah, that, as late as 
A. D. 1000., Cabul was in possession of a Hindu prince, who opposed 
the invasion of Mahmud of Ghoznin : but the want of Hindu histories 
renders it impossible to determine the precise period to which the 
numerous Hindu legends relate, the scene of which is unquestionably 
laid in countries to the north and west of the Indus. 

It must, therefore, appear surprising that the language of Pers ia 
which country in either case was conterminous to India, should be 
so radically dissimilar from Sanscrit : but, as this circumstance will not 
perhaps after the preceding remarks be disputed, this dissimilarity 
proves that the world could not have been peopled from India; 
because, in this case, Persia must have been also occupied by a Hindu 
race, and, as mutual intercourse would probably have been maintained 
between a kindred people, the Sanscrit ought to have been preserved 
in its greatest purity in Persia. It is, on the contrary, in Greece and 
Italy, both situated to the west of India and Persia, that the languages 
exhibit a striking likeness of their parent, not only in similarity of 
numerous words, but in absolute identity of grammatical structure. 
At the same time, Persian contains too many identical terms with 
Sanscrit, to admit of its being supposed that they could have been 
introduced into that country either by commerce or war. Were, 
indeed, credit given to ancient writers, invasion and conquest were 
on the side of the Persians, and, consequently, some Persian words 
ought to be found in Sanscrit j but, as this is not the case, and as the 
words belonging to both tongues can be analysed and reduced to 
simpler elements, and have cognate terms in Sanscrit only, it 
necessarily follows that the latter must have been the original lan- 
guage. The Teutonic dialects, also, though now dissimilar from 
Sanscrit in their grammatical structure, still contain many Sanscrit 
words, while in their early state they appear to have been entirely free 
from all other foreign terms. If, therefore, I have rendered it pro- 
bable that Greek, Latin, and Thracian, or the mother of the Teutonic 
dialects, were all originally the same language, that spoken in Asia 

* Strabo, p. 688, 689. 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. I99 

Minor about thirteen or fourteen hundred years before the Christian 
era, it merely remains to place the people who then spoke Sanscrit 
in a centrical position between Persia and Asia Minor, or, in other 
words, in that very country in which were established the Babylonian 
and Assyrian empires. 

According to this supposition, the similarity between Sanscrit and 
the languages of Europe is explained in a manner the most simple 
and probable ; for, Asia Minor being peopled from Babylonia, the 
inhabitants preserved the grammatical structure of their mother 
tongue, but, from causes now impossible to ascertain, could not 
prevent a great change from taking place in the words of which it was 
originally composed. In migrating from Asia Minor, the Greeks 
retained the grammatical structure with little alteration, but among 
the Latins it became considerably affected, and among the Teutonic 
people it has been in a great measure lost * : but the Sanscrit words are 
as numerous in Latin and the Teutonic dialects as in Greek. Persia, 
however, forms a difficulty to this conjecture ; for, from its position, it 
ought to have been peopled from Babylonia in the same manner as 
Asia Minor, and to have preserved, from its secluded situation, the 
grammatical structure of Sanscrit in even greater purity. The solution 
of this difficulty would be easy, could it be supposed that the Persian 
language had lost its grammatical inflections from the same causes 
that the Teutonic dialects have acquired their present simplicity. But 
not even to support my own hypothesis can I admit that the structure 
and general analogy of the Persian could ever have been the same as 
Sanscrit ; for, had it been so, no instance exists of such a dissimilarity 
having taken place in languages once identical, nor can any cause be 
conceived, except that of foreign influence which never was exerted 
in that country, which could effect it. Persia, therefore, may have 
been originally, at a remote period, peopled from Babylonia ; but its 
inhabitants, in whatever manner, acquired a language perfectly distinct 
from Sanscrit. Subsequently, however, it is equally evident that a 

* For further remarks on this point see p. 263. 



200 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

colony speaking Sanscrit must have been established and possessed 
considerable influence in Persia ; for by no other means could so many 
Sanscrit words, denoting such various ideas, have been introduced into 
its language. 

The very track, therefore, by which a people speaking Sanscrit 
would have proceeded from Babylonia to India, is thus distinctly 
pointed out, after a lapse of 3000 years, by the words of their language, 
which are still preserved in the speech of the only nation that 
intervenes between the two countries. The causes that may have 
occasioned this migration, or the manner in which it was conducted, 
are scarcely subjects of conjecture : but, if the whole of ancient 
history be considered, the only event that could have occasioned it 
was the conquest of the Babylonian empire by Ninus. On this 
subversion of the ancient dynasty, a new ruler may have introduced 
new customs, and it would probably at least be his policy to diminish 
the power and influence of the ancient nobility and priesthood. 
Under such circumstances, what can be more likely than that these 
classes, becoming dissatisfied, should withdraw themselves from the 
territories of their new sovereign, and should seek in other countries 
for that liberty and that distinction which they could no longer enjoy 
in their native land? Part of these emigrants may have proceeded 
into Asia Minor ; but, from this country being so similar in language 
and religion to Babylonia, any influence which they might have 
exerted in it would not become perceptible in the slight notices 
which have been preserved of these distant times : but in Persia a 
distinct language prevailed, and the residence of such a colony in it is 
proved by the words which it communicated to the speech of its 
inhabitants ; and in India similar emigrants succeeded in establishing 
an influence which has endured until the present day. It seems 
probable, therefore, that the Brahmans belonged originally to the 
priesthood of Babylonia : and, as they no doubt brought with them 
into India the sacred books in which their religious doctrines were 
contained, the antiquity of the vedas and earlier Hindu works need 
no longer be questioned ; since they were the production of those 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 



201 



Chaldeans, whose remote antiquity and whose knowledge and learning 
are attested by the whole of ancient history. 

It may, however, be objected, that it is highly improbable that 
a foreign colony should have been able to extend their influence from 
the Paropamisan mountains to Cape Comorin ; and, in particular, to 
establish so singular an institution as that of Cast. 

But, as language is the most convincing testimony, an examination 
of the vernacular dialects of India will render it evident that Sanscrit 
is a foreign language, which has been superinduced on them, and not 
they on N Sanscrit. Nothing can be a stronger proof of this than that 
they have all retained their own grammatical structure, which is 
distinguished from that of Sanscrit by the use of postpositions in the 
declension of nouns, and of auxiliary verbs in the conjugation of 
verbs. * The changes, also, which Sanscrit words have undergone on 
being naturalised in these dialects, show that these changes were not 
made merely for the purpose of adapting them to pronunciation, but 
in order to subject them to the grammatical rules of a language 
already formed, f On this point, however, I prefer availing myself 
of the opinion of the late Mr. Ellis of Madras, who was distinguished 
for his intimate acquaintance with Sanscrit and the languages of 
Southern India. 

"The members," observes Mr. Ellis, "constituting the family of 
languages, which may be appropriately called the dialects of Southern 

* Mr. Campbell, in the Introduction to his Teloogoo Grammar, p. 19., observes : — 
" In the course of this work, it will be obvious to the Sanscrit scholar that the declension 
of the noun by particles or words added to it, the use of a plural pronoun applicable to the 
first and second persons conjointly, the conjugation of the affirmative verb, the existence of 
a negative aorist, a negative imperative, and other negative forms in the vei'b, the union of 
the neuter and feminine genders in the singular, and of the masculine and feminine genders 
in the plural, of the pronouns and verbs, and the whole body of the syntax, are entirely 
unconnected with the Sanscrit." 

f That is, the nominative of the Sanscrit noun and the real root of the Sanscrit verb 
are taken, and, after occasionally suffering some slight changes, are inflected according to 
the grammatical rules of the vernacular dialect. Thus, in the Maratha language, padma, 
a lotus, suffers no change, but sarpa, a serpent, becomes sap, and both are declined as 
usual; and the verb karoti, he does, from the root kri, changed by grammatical rules to 
kar, becomes karito, and is conjugated like other Maratha verbs. 

D D 



202 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

India, are the high and low Tamil; the Telugu, grammatical and 
vulgar ; Carniitaca or Cannadi, ancient and modern ; Malayalma or 
Malayalam, which after Paulinus a St. Bartholomaso may be divided 
into Sanscrit (Grandonico-Malabarica) and common Malayalam, 
though the former differs from the latter only in introducing Sanscrit 
terms and forms in unrestrained profusion ; and the Tuluva, the 
native speech of that part of the country to which in our maps the 

name of Canara is confined The Telugu, to which attention is 

here more specially directed, is formed from its own roots, which, in 
general, have no connexion with the Sanscrit, nor with those of any 
other language, the cognate dialects of Southern India, the Tamil, 
Cannadi, &c, excepted, with which, allowing for the occasional variation 
of consimilar sounds, they generally agree ; the actual difference in 
the three dialects here mentioned is, in fact, to be found only in the 
affixes used in the formation of words from the roots ; the roots 
themselves are not similar merely, but the same." * Again, " In 
the preceding extracts the author, supported by due authority, teaches, 
that rejecting direct and indirect derivatives from the Sanscrit, and 
words borrowed from foreign languages, what remains is the pure 
native language of the land ; this constitutes the great body of the 
[Telugu] tongue, and is capable of expressing every mental and bodily 
operation, every possible relation and existing thing ; for, with the 
exception of some religious and technical terms, no word of Sanscrit 
derivation is necessary to the Telugu. This pure native language of 
the land, allowing for dialectic differences and variations of termi- 
nation, is, with the Telugu, common to the Tamil, Cannadi, and the 
other dialects of Southern India." f 

Mr. Ellis does not specify the northern boundary of these southern 

* Note to the Introduction to Campbell's Teloogoo Grammar, p. 3. 

f Ibid. p. 18. In commencing his remarks, Mr. Ellis quotes the opinions of Carey, 
Wilkins, and Colebrooke, and then thus proceeds : — "It is the intent of the following 
observations to show that the statements contained in the preceding quotations are not 
correct; that neither the Tamil, the Telugu, nor any of their cognate dialects, are 
derivations from the Sanscrit ; that the latter, however it may contribute to their polish, 
is not necessary for their existence, and that they form a distinct family of languages, with 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 203 

languages ; but in that part of India which is situated to the north of 
the river Krishna, and which comprises the Deccan and Hindustan 
Proper, other languages prevail, entirely distinct from the former in 
words, but similar in their grammatical system. Their particular 
nature, however, has attracted scarcely any attention, and I have not, 
therefore, the means of describing them with accuracy, or of specifying 
the limits of the countries in which they are spoken.* But Mr. 
Colebrooke has made the following observations with respect to the one 
of most importance : — " The Canyacubjas possessed a great empire, 
the metropolis of which was the ancient city of Canyacubja or Canqj. 
Theirs seems to be the language which forms the groundwork of 
modern Hindustani, and which is known by the appellation of Hindi 
or Hindevi. Two dialects of it may be easily distinguished ; one more 
refined, the other less so. To this last the name of Hindi is some- 
times restricted, while the other is often confounded with Pracrit. 
Numerous poems have been composed in both dialects, not only 
before the Hindustani was ingrafted on the Hindi by a large inter- 
mixture of Persian ; but also in very modern times, by Muhammedan 
as well as Hindu poets. Dohras or detached couplets, and Cabits 
or stanzas, in the Hindevi, may be found among the works of 
Musleman authors : it will be sufficient to instance those of Melic 



which the Sanscrit has, in later times especially, intermixed, but with which it has no 
radical connection." 

These very correct remarks apply with equal justness to the vernacular dialects spoken 
to the north of the river Krishna. 

* The vernacular dialects with which I have become acquainted during my residence 
in India are the Maratha, Gurjrati, and the Hindi to the north of the Krishna, and the 
Malayalam to the south of that river. The country in which the first of these is spoken 
is bouVided on the east by the Satpur range of mountains ; on the north by a line drawn 
from the northern termination of these mountains to Daman ; on the west from Daman to 
Goa by the sea ; and on the south from Goa to near Chanda on the Warda, and thence 
along that river to the Satpur mountains. The Gurjrati is confined to the province of 
Gurjrat, which extends from Daman on the south to the confines of Ajmere on the 
north, and is bounded on the east by Malwa and Kandeish, and on the west by the sea 
and Cutch. But I am not acquainted with the precise limits in which the Hindi at present 
prevails. 

D D 2 



204 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

Muhammed Jaisi, Muhammed Afzel, and Amirkhan Anjam. Most 
poems in this dialect are, however, the exclusive production of Hindu 
poets. On examining them, the affinity of Hindi with the Sanscrit lan- 
guage is peculiarly striking : and no person acquainted with both can 
hesitate in affirming that Hindi is chiefly borrowed from Sanscrit. Many 
words, of which the etymology shows them to be the purest Sanscrit, 
are received unaltered ; many more undergo no change but that of 
making the final vowel silent : a still greater number exhibit no other 
difference than what arises from the uniform permutation of certain 
letters ; the rest, too, with comparatively few exceptions, may be easily 
traced to a Sanscrit origin. That this is the root from which Hindi 
has sprung (not Hindi the dialect whence Sanscrit has been refined) 
may be proved by etymology, the analogy of which is lost in Hindi, 
and preserved in Sanscrit. A few examples will render this evident. 
.... These examples might be easily multiplied, but unprofitably, I 
fear : for, after proving that nine tenths of the Hindi dialect may 
be traced back to the Sanscrit idiom, there yet remains the difficulty 
of accounting for the remaining tenth, which is, perhaps, the basis of 
the Hindi language. Sir William Jones thought it so ; and he thence 
inferred that the pure Hindi was primeval in Upper India, into which 
the Sanscrit was introduced by conquerors from other kingdoms in 
some very remote age. This opinion I do not mean to controvert. 
I only contend that, where similar words are found in both languages, 
the Hindi has borrowed from Sanscrit, rather than the Sanscrit 
from Hindi. It may be remarked, too, that in most countries the 
progress has been from languages rich in inflections, to dialects simple 
in their structure. In modern idioms, auxiliary verbs and appendant 
particles supply the place of numerous inflections of the root. It may 
for this reason be doubted whether the present structure of the Hindi 
tongue be not a modern refinement. But the question, which has 
been here hinted rather than discussed, can be decided only by a 
careful examination of the oldest compositions that are now extant in 
the Hindi dialect. Until some person execute this task, a doubt must 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 



205 



remain, whether the groundwork of Hindi, and, consequently, of 
Hindustani, be wholly distinct from that of Sanscrit." * 

It hence seems obvious that the opinion of Mr. Colebrooke, respect- 
ing the derivation of Hindi from Sanscrit, was formed from the perusal 
of Hindi works f, and not from an examination of this dialect as stil! 
spoken in a considerable part of Upper India: for Dr. Hunter's 
Hindustani Dictionary ^ contains upwards of 6000 Hindi words, which 
have not the remotest resemblance to Sanscrit ; and, consequently, 
according to Mr. Colebrooke's supposition, this language in its original 
state must have contained 60,000 words. But the very structure of 
Hindi, which admits not of composition or even the modification to 
any extent of the primitive, renders such a copiousness evidently 
impossible ; and, as Hindustani, which is composed of Hindi, Persian, 
and Arabic, contains not more than 18,000 words, it may be reasonably 
concluded that at least one half of the Hindi still continues in use ; 
and, also, that Hindi is a language radically dissimilar from Sanscrit, 
from which it has not been derived, nor has the Sanscrit been refined 
from it. 

This point is of the utmost importance, because the Hindi is the 

* Asiatic Researches, 8vo, vol. vii. p. 220. 

f The works in all the vernacular dialects of India are written in a style, which, on 
on account of the profuse employment of Sanscrit words, and of such as are peculiar to 
poetry, is totally distinct, even often in its grammatical inflections, from the same dialect 
as spoken. In ascertaining, therefore, the affinity between these dialects and Sanscrit, all 
words belonging to the latter language ought to be previously excluded. Mr. Colebrooke 
has evidently not attended to this circumstance, and hence his reasoning on the nature of 
the Hindi is somewhat inconsistent, and, no doubt, different from what it would have been 
had he directed his attention to the basis of this dialect, and not to the Sanscrit words 
which have been introduced into it. Because, on the same grounds, the existence in India 
of any language distinct from Sanscrit might be equally disputed, as all the vernacular 
dialects abound in Sanscrit words ; but they all at the same time present a basis radically 
dissimilar from it. 

% This dictionary is stated in the titlepage to have been originally compiled by Captain 
Joseph Taylor for his own use, and to have been revised and prepared for the press, with 
the assistance of learned natives in the college of Fort William, by Dr. William Hunter. 
In it the language to which each word belongs is carefully marked by an appropriate letter; 
and, to the etymological part of the work, the only objection that can be made is that n 
good many of the derivations of Hindi words from Sanscrit seem forced, and by no means 
obvious. 



206 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

basis of the present Maratha and Gurjrati, and, if I be not mistaken, 
of all the dialects of Northern India. Numerous words, also, are no 
doubt preserved in each of these dialects, which have been lost in the 
others ; but as they all bear a cognate form which cannot be mistaken, 
since it resembles neither Sanscrit, Persian, nor Arabic, the mere 
trouble of collection and selection would, I am convinced, restore the 
ancient language of Kanoje to its original purity, and, very probably, 
to its original copiousness. But even the membra disjecta of this 
language prove that it is radically distinct from Sanscrit ; for, were 
it even admitted that the speech of any people, unaffected by foreign 
influence, becomes simplified in the course of ages, a change, however, 
of which no instance can be produced, it would still remain to explain 
the cause of the total dissimilarity which exists in the structure of 
Sanscrit and Hindi. The circumstance of the latter abhorring com- 
position, while the former delights in it, is alone sufficient, according 
to the opinion of Sir W. Jones, to establish that languages formed 
upon such opposite principles are totally distinct, and must have 
been invented by two different races of men. But the long estab- 
lished influence of a powerful priesthood, and the originality and 
purity of the Sanscrit language, sufficiently attest that the dialects of 
Southern and Northern India could not have been introduced into 
the country subsequent to the establishment of the Brahmans in it ; 
they must, consequently, be considered to have been the vernacular 
tongues of its original inhabitants : and, as the parent language of the 
dialects of the south differs from that of the north, it would seem, also, 
to follow, that India must have been either originally peopled by two 
distinct races of men ; or, what is more probable, that the aborigines 
of the north had, even prior to the immigration of the Brahminical 
colony, been conquered by a foreign people. 

Mr. Colebrooke is further of opinion that Sanscrit " has nearly 
shared the fate of all ancient tongues, and is now become almost a 
dead language." He adds, in reference to the manner in which words 
are combined together in Sanscrit works, — "None but well known 
compounds would be used by any speaker who wished to be under- 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 



207 



stood ; and each word would be distinctly articulated, independently of 
the terms that precede and follow it. Such, indeed, is the present 
practice of those who still speak the Sanscrit language ; and they deliver 
themselves with such fluency, as is sufficient to prove that Sanscrit may 
have been spoken in former times with as much facility as the con- 
temporary dialects of the Greek language, or the more modern dialects 
of the Arabic tongue." * That the Brahmans spoke Sanscrit amongst 
themselves cannot be doubted, since this practice exists in several 
parts of India at this day ; and that the princes and nobles studied this 
language seems proved by various circumstances, and that they even 
occasionally spoke it is highly probable : but that Sanscrit was ever 
the vernacular tongue of the great mass of the people is equally 
disproved, by the totally distinct nature, both in words and gram- 
matical structure, of the languages which have prevailed, notwith- 
standing conquest and the adoption of a new religion, in the north and 
south of India until the present day. The Brahminical colony, there- 
fore, seem to have used in secular intercourse the dialects of the 
country ; and it must be obvious that it was by this means alone that 
they could have rendered Sanscrit a mysterious and sacred language, 
and that they could have preserved it pure and unaffected by those 
innovations to which it would have necessarily been exposed, had it 
been attempted to introduce its use amongst the original inhabitants 
of India. 

The indisputable testimony, therefore, of language proves that at 
some remote period two powerful kingdoms flourished, the one in the 
north, and the other in the south of India ; which afterwards became 
divided into a number of distinct states, each distinguished by a 
different dialect, and by a different and independent government f : 

* Asiatic Researches, 8vo, vol. vii. p. 201. 

f Mr. Colebrooke observes, — " There is reason to believe that ten polished dialects 
formerly prevailed in as many different civilized nations, who occupied all the fertile pro- 
vinces of Hindustan and the Dekhin Without passing the limits of Hindustan, it 

would be easy to collect a copious list of different dialects in the various provinces which arc 
inhabited by the ten principal Hindu nations. The extensive region which is nearly 
denned by the banks of the Saraswati and Ganga on the north, and which is strictly limited 



208 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

but it equally appears that, at the period of Alexander's invasion of 
India, the present system of civil and religious institutions must 
have been long established amongst the Hindus. Such a uniformity, 
however, could not have possibly originated amongst a number of 
independent states from any conceivable circumstances of an internal 
nature ; for it is evidently contrary to probability to suppose that a 
conqueror could ever have arisen in India, who was able to subdue 
the whole of the country, from the mountains of Baluchistan to the 
Himalaya, and from the Paropamisan mountains to Cape Comorin, 
and to impose on the conquered people his own institutions, laws, 
and religion : but, if it be supposed that this uniformity was 
produced by the gradual but unwearied exertions of a foreign 
priesthood, the conjecture becomes at once probable ; since it is 
supported by the fact, that the propagation and success of Christianity 
were effected in exactly the same manner. Nor is it unlikely that 
when this priesthood had acquired influence and power, the same 
means by which Islamism was extended over so great a part of the 
world, may have been employed in establishing the Brahminical 
religion in India. 

The introduction, however, into so extensive a country, by a 
foreign priesthood, of so singular an institution as that of Cast, 
appears to present a serious difficulty ; for it seems most reasonable 
to suppose that so marked a distinction of ranks could only originate 
when men first formed themselves into societies, and when they 
could not foresee the consequences that might result from it ; and 
that its permanency ought to be attributed to that veneration 
with which institutions, however objectionable, become invested by 



by the shores of the eastern and western seas towards the south, contains fifty-seven [six] 
provinces according to some lists, and eighty-four according to others. Each of these pro- 
vinces has its peculiar dialect, which appears, however, in most instances to be a variety 
only of some one among the ten principal idioms." — Asiatic Researches, 8vo, vol. vii. p. 219. 
But from the preceding remarks it appears that even these ten idioms are reducible to 
two principal languages, one of which anciently prevailed in the south and the other in the 
north of India. 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 



209 



antiquity and long established custom. But the situation of India at 
the time when the Brahminical colony migrated into it is unknown, 
and no opinion, therefore, can be formed respecting the degree of 
civilisation to which the Hindus might have then attained, or the 
extent and power of the states into which the country might have been 
then divided. It must, also, be remarked that, amongst all nations, before 
luxury has introduced artificial wants, the division of the people into 
priests, king, and nobles, merchants and agriculturists, artificers and 
servants, has been most distinctly marked, and that these different 
classes have, in general, always intermarried with each other. In 
India, consequently, it was merely necessary for a foreign priesthood 
to sanctify this natural division by ascribing it to a divine origin, 
to define its limits more precisely, and to guard against a transgression 
of them by denunciations of consequent punishment in this world 
and the next ; and the Hindu institution of cast would have at once 
become established, without in the slightest degree interfering with 
the previous customs and institutions of the people. But, if entire 
credit could be given to the antiquity and authenticity of the sacred 
books of the Hindus, this point would be at once decided ; for in 
them the whole of the civil and religious institutions of India appear 
to have been the result of one uniform system, and not the gradual 
produce of time and circumstances. Nor, judging from the anomalous 
laws and institutions of more civilised countries, is it possible to 
conceive how time and circumstances could ever have produced that 
uniformity which so peculiarly distinguishes the Brahminical code. 
If, therefore, the uniformity of a work bespeaks the hand of a single 
artist, it must be concluded that the existing civil and religious 
institutions of the Hindus did not originate among themselves, but 
were introduced, already formed and systematically arranged, by some 
foreign influence. 

I am, at the same time, perfectly aware that the antiquity of the 
Hindu religion has been contested ; but, after the preceding remarks, 
it will perhaps be admitted that the 339 Sanscrit words now found in 
Greek must have passed into it before the time of Homer, and 

E E 



210 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

that the origin of that identity of grammatical system in these two 
languages, which is even at this day so remarkable, must be referred 
to a still remoter period. As, therefore, it appears incontestable, from 
the whole structure of Sanscrit, that every term expressive of an idea 
relating to the peculiar institutions and religion of the Hindus must 
have formed a component part of this language when it received 
its present form, it necessarily follows that the Brahminical system 
must have been completed in every essential part at least 1 LOO or 
1200 years B. C. * But in a late work on Hindu Astronomy is this 
singular assertion : — " It is by the investigation of truth, and the 
exposure of Brahminical impositions, which can only be done through the 
means of Astronomy, that the labours of those who are laudably 
endeavouring to introduce true religion and morality among the 
Hindus can have their true and beneficial effect. So long as the 
impositions and falsehoods contained in the Hindu books, which the 
common people are made to believe are the productions of their 
ancient sages, are suffered to remain unexposed, little progress can be 
expected to be made." f As I am not acquainted with the science of 

* It will scarcely, I think, be denied that the name of the sacred books of their religion 
is a word that the Brahmans would never, on any account, have changed. But veda is 
derived from vedatt, contracted vetti, he knows, one of the verbs most commonly used in 
Sanscrit, and from which several words are derived of equally frequent occurrence, as vidya, 
learning ; vidivan, a learned man, &c. This verb, also, has been preserved in Greek, Latin, 
and Anglo-Saxon, as S. vidanti, G. eidovrou, L. vident, A. S. "witon. 

f Bentley's Hindu Astronomy, p. 213. 

I cannot avoid quoting the following strange remarks of Mr. Bentley, for even more 
absurd ones have obtained credit in Europe : — " In fact there is no imposition too gross ox- 
absurd that a Hindu will not employ to gain his ends, if he can effect it by that means. 
We see that by the means of this system of Brahma (invented in A. D. 538.), and of various 
passages like the above, inserted in the books with a view to support it, the real Hindu 
history and chronology have been completely destroyed ; so that Yudhisht'hira, Parasara, 
Garga, and others, who lived from about 540 to 575 B. C, were thrown back into 

antiquity about 2600 years more But to carry all this into effect, many things were 

necessary. In the first place, it was requisite that all their ancient books on astronomy, 
history, &c, that could in the smallest degree affect or contradict the new order of things, 
should be either destroyed, new modelled, or the obnoxious passages expunged; and, 
secondly, that others should be written or composed, having the appearance of antiquity, 
by being fathered on ancient writers, to support, as it were, by their evidence, the existence 
in ancient times, and through all ages, of the new system of years thus introduced This 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 2] 1 

astronomy, I cannot form an opinion with respect to the correctness of 
the conclusions which Mr. Bentley has deduced from astronomical 
data ; but Mr. Colebrooke has remarked : — " The truth is, that the 
observations of Hindu astronomers were ever extremely coarse and im- 
perfect, and their practice very inferior to their theory of astronomy. 
An improved theory, or the hint of it, was borrowed from the West ; but 
they did not learn to make correct observations. They were content in 

practice with a rude approximation We are not to try their rules 

by the test of their agreement with accurate observation at any 
assignable moment, and thence conclude that the rule and its correct 
application are contemporaneous. This has always been the point at 
issue between Mr. Bentley and me. He mentioned in his first essay, 
that the age of a Hindu astronomical treatise can be so determined 
with precision ; I have always contended that their practical astronomy 



will account, not only for the books that now exist being either entirely modern, or else new 
modelled to correspond with the new order of things, but also for the paucity of ancient 
facts and observations that have reached our time." — Hind. Ast., p. 106. et seq. The 
manner in which this destruction or remodelling of all the ancient books, and the composition 
of new ones, throughout the whole of India, were effected, is thus explained by Mr. Bentley, 
in p. 108. of the same work : — "To some it would doubtless appear as a thing impossible, 
that a set of Brahmins in Ujein could impose such a system on the rest of India. Those, how- 
ever, who are acquainted with the Brahminical character, know too well that every thing was 
in their power : they were in possession of all the learning in the country, and their influence 
was so great, that even the princes of the country were obliged to bow submission to their 
will. Therefore, when they assembled together in convocation, to consult on the general 
interest of the whole body, whatever resolutions they came to on that head would be univer- 
sally adopted by the brethren ; and woe to the man that should dare oppose them, for their 
power and influence far exceeded those of the popes in Europe, so that wherever they sent 
their secret orders, they would be sure to be obeyed." But, with regard to such extravagant 
and groundless suppositions, it is sufficient to remark, on the authority of Mr. Colebrooke, 
that Mr. Bentley was unacquainted with Sanscrit, and, therefore, totally incapable of forming 
any opinion respecting the authenticity or spuriousness of works written in that language. 
The whole of his hypothesis, at the same time, rests entirely on an assumption which is 
directly opposed to fact: for the Brahmans in India have never met in general convocation, 
nor have they ever acted with one common consent; but, on the contrary, the Brahmans 
of its different provinces have always viewed each other with jealousy, and have never met 
together except at the courts of princes on some public occasion. It was, therefore, utterly 
impossible for the Brahmans of Ujein to have effected that revolution in Sanscrit literature 
which is so elaborately, but so groundlessly, described by Mr. Bentley. 

E E 2 



212 THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 

has been too loose and imperfect for the application of that test, 
except as an approximation. In one instance, by the rigorous use of 
his test, he would have had to pronounce that the work under 
examination is of an age yet to come (1454 years after A. D. 1799) : 
see As. Res., vol. vi. p. 570. To avoid so monstrous an absurdity, he 
rejected this case, and deduced a mean from the other results, varying 
from 340 to 1105 years." * But, after this opinion of Mr. Colebrooke, 
who is so peculiarly qualified for determining any contested point in 
Sanscrit literature, it must be evident that conclusions founded on 
Hindu astronomy are not of sufficient certainty or authority to 
invalidate the incontrovertible testimony of language. 

The antiquity and originality, however, of Sanscrit might appear 
questionable, were this remark of Sir William Jones correct, — " The 
Sanscrit of the three first Vedas (I need not here speak of the fourth), 
that of the Manava Dherma Sastra, and that of the Puranas, differ from 
each other in pretty exact proportion to the Latin of Numa, from 
whose laws entire sentences are preserved, that of Appius, which we 
see in the fragment of the Twelve Tables, and that of Cicero, or of 
Lucretius, where he has not affected an obsolete style."j" This opinion 
is, in part, supported by Mr. Colebrooke, who has observed, — " The 
ancient dialect in which the Vedas are composed, and especially that 
of the three first, is extremely difficult and obscure : and, though 
curious, as the parent of a more polished and refined language (the 
classical Sanscrit), its difficulties must long continue to prevent such 
an examination of the whole Vedas, as would be requisite for extracting 
all that is remarkable and important in those voluminous works.":]: 
But, notwithstanding such high authority, I must still entertain doubts 
respecting the philological correctness of this opinion ; for it appears 
to me that the difficulty and obscurity of the Vedas and Manawa 
Dharma Shastra proceed from the nature of the subject, and the style 
adopted in discussing it, and not from the employment of words which 

* Asiatic Journal for March 1826, p. 365. 
t Sir William Jones's Works, vol. iii. p. 55. 
X Asiatic Researches, vol. viii. p. 476. 



THE SANSCRIT LANGUAGE. 



213 



have become obsolete in modern Sanscrit. The construction, also, 
and the grammatical rules observed differ perhaps considerably 
from those which have prevailed since the grammar of the language 
has been so sedulously cultivated. So far, therefore, Sanscrit may 
have been polished and refined ; but, in words, it no doubt remains 
identically the same as when it was first introduced into India. 

Reasoning, indeed, merely a priori, it must seem altogether im- 
probable that a distinct priesthood, whose lives were dedicated to 
learning and religion, would ever change the language in which their 
sacred books were written, and which was employed by their order 
alone. Unless, therefore, it can be proved that Sanscrit was at one 
time the vernacular tongue of India, no conceivable cause could be 
assigned for the ancient Sanscrit differing as widely from the modern, 
as the Latin of Numa from that of Cicero. But, were there the 
slightest grounds for this assumption, the supposed effects ought to be 
visible in modern Sanscrit, as in this case it could not possibly exhibit 
that perfect homogeneity of structure by which it is so peculiarly 
distinguished. The inspection of a page or two of Cicero will at once 
show that Latin has not the slightest pretension to originality ; but in 
Sanscrit not an exotic term can be discovered. If, consequently, 
words have become obsolete, in what manner were new ones invented 
which accord so accurately with the original structure of the language ? 
Is there, also, a single instance of any body of men discontinuing the 
words to which they had been accustomed from their infancy, in 
order to have the pleasure of inventing new ones? But, under this 
assumption, if the supposed alteration in Sanscrit was not occasioned 
by external influence, as its internal evidence most clearly proves it 
was not, these totally improbable circumstances must have actually 
taken place. It is further necessary to explain how 900 primitive 
Sanscrit words, still existing in it, could have passed into five distinct 
languages at least 900 years B. C. These and similar considerations 
will, perhaps, evince that there are no reasons whatever for supposing 
that Sanscrit has suffered any essential alteration since it was first 
introduced into India. 



214 



CHAP. XIII. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

But, if the Sanscrit be as original a language as its internal structure 
incontrovertible proves, and if it had received its present form before 
the time of Homer, as the Sanscrit words in his poems unquestionably 
attest, it must necessarily follow that it was not from Greek, Latin, Per- 
sian, German, and English that Sanscrit received the words belonging 
to these languages, but that these languages received them from the 
Sanscrit. Since, also, these words are so numerous, and expressive of 
such a variety of ideas, it must equally follow that a most intimate con- 
nection must have at some remote period existed between the ancestors 
of the Greeks, Romans, and Teutonic race, the Persians, and a people 
who spoke Sanscrit. It is to account for this remarkable circumstance 
that all hypotheses respecting the origin and affinity of languages 
hitherto proposed are totally insufficient ; and, consequently, as the 
causes assigned are inadequate to produce the effects alleged, these 
hypotheses must now be considered to rest on no foundation whatever. 
Mr. Colebrooke, however, has observed that " Sanscrit is a most 
polished tongue, which was gradually refined, until it became fixed in 
the classic writings of many elegant poets, most of whom are supposed 
to have flourished in the century preceding the Christian asra. It is 
cultivated by learned Hindus throughout India, as the language of 
science and of literature, and as the repository of their law, civil and 
religious. It evidently draws its origin (and some steps of its progress 
may even now be traced) from a primeval tongue, which was gradually 
refined in various climates, and became Sanscrit in India, Pahlavi in 
Persia, and Greek on the shores of the Mediterranean."* But that 
this opinion is clearly erroneous is evident from there not being 

* Asiatic Researches, vol. vii. p. 200. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 215 

a Sanscrit word in the Pahlvi vocabulary of Anquetil du Perron ; and 
the poems of Homer, and the fame of preceding poets, equally prove 
that it was not in Greece that Greek received its wonderful refinement 
and perfection. As, also, the hymns of the Thracian Thamyris and 
Orpheus were admired for singular sweetness even in the time of 
Plato, it seems undeniable that the language, afterwards called Greek, 
must have then acquired its present form ; and, consequently, this 
question arises, Are there any indications in history, tradition, or affinity 
of language, which evince that a primeval tongue did actually exist 
1200 years B. C, from which Greek and Sanscrit were derived? But 
it is evidently impossible to answer this question in the affirmative, or 
to produce any proofs of the prevalence of such a primeval tongue ; 
and the mere supposition, therefore, that it may have existed is not 
sufficient to disprove the perfect originality of Sanscrit. 

To refute general assertions is difficult. But, that this primeval 
tongue could not be either Hebrew * or Celtic is evident from Sanscrit 
containing no words that belong to either of these languages. Nor 
could it have been Persian, which Wachter considers as the proper 
representative of the Scythian tongue, because in that language there 
are words which admit of decomposition, and which have cognate 
terms in Sanscrit only, and the grammatical structure, also, of Sanscrit 
and Persian is radically dissimilar. Where, then, are the words of this 
primeval tongue to be found, and, if it be now extinct, how are the 
words supposed to belong to it and to be still preserved in Sanscrit to 
be ascertained ? For, if the cognate form of all its words, and their 

* Even Mr. Townsend appears to find it impossible to identify Hebrew with Sanscrit 
words ; for he observes, — "I might now proceed to examine and trace the affinity between 
Sanscrit and Hebrew, which are certainly related, although not as sisters, nor as parent and 
offspring, but for the present I forbear." — Hist, of Moses, vol. ii. p. 330. This is unkind ; 
because it must be desirable to ascertain how far cousinship may exist among languages. 

It would have been prudent, also, if Mr. Townsend had refrained from adducing any 
examples to show that a well marked affinity exists between the Sanscrit and the Gothic : for 
of fifty-six words which he has given, fourteen are not Sanscrit, and no person can admit 
the identity of such words as these, — Gaelic, beatheach, Sanscrit, pasu,- G. dubhalri, S. davon 
(not Sanscrit) ; G. moide, S. mahattara ; G. meall, S. malum ; G. bacalta, S. pafca 
(paktum?) ; G. daighead, S. datum. Hist, of Moses, vol. ii. p. 219, 220. 



216 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

easy resolution on fixed principles into simpler elements existing in 
itself, prove not the originality of a language, I know not any other 
criteria by which this point can be determined. Whoever, therefore, 
may be inclined to dispute the originality of Sanscrit must prove that 
these qualities cannot be predicated of it ; because, if this postulatum 
be once admitted, it must necessarily follow that Sanscrit has not been 
derived from any other language. 

Assuming, therefore, this point as proved, it must be further 
remarked that the only languages in which Sanscrit words exist are 
the Greek, Latin, Persian, and Gothic, and the vernacular dialects of 
India. But, as it cannot be denied that the basis of these latter has 
been derived from some primitive tongue radically dissimilar from 
Sanscrit, and as the structure and grammatical system of Persian 
prove it to be a distinct language, it seems evident that Sanscrit words 
could not have passed into Greek, Latin, and Gothic, after the people 
who originally spoke Sanscrit had established themselves in India. 
The particular part, however, of the world which this people may have 
at first inhabited is of no importance, because, wherever it may be 
placed, the philological conclusions contained in this work would not 
be affected by this circumstance. If, therefore, it be not admitted that 
Babylonia was the original seat of the Sanscrit language and the 
Sanscrit literature ; the reader may select any other country from 
which he considers it more probable that .900 Sanscrit words could 
have passed into the Greek, Latin, Persian, and Gothic languages. 
But, as it can scarcely be contested that the Thracians, who migrated 
from Asia Minor and occupied the country which extended from 
Macedonia to the Euxine Sea along the shores of the Mediterranean, 
the Hellespont, and the Thracian Bosphorus, were the ancestors of the 
Grecian and Gothic people ; and that it was colonies from Asia Minor 
who communicated their language to Latium and Hetruria ; it must 
seem most probable that Asia Minor received the Sanscrit language 
from a conterminous and not from a distant country. 

On this subject it is difficult to understand the opinions of the 
German literati who have written on the affinity of languages.' For 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



217 



the earlier authors, adopting the usual interpretation of the Mosaic 
history, considered Armenia to have been the country which was first 
inhabited after the deluge ; but Adelung and other writers contend 
that it was the high land of Middle Asia. In the last of which cases 
the miracle which occasioned the confusion of languages is, if not 
expressly, at least virtually denied ; because it seems impossible that a 
migration from Thibet to the plain of Shinar could have taken place 
in the period which Moses states to have elapsed from the deluge to 
the building of the tower of Babel. But, if the world were peopled 
from Middle Asia, a primitive tongue must have existed, and, con- 
sequently, as its complete extinction is highly improbable, traces of 
it ought to be found in all known languages. Adelung, however, 
observes in his preface, — "I have no favourite idea, no hypothesis 
to establish, and I merely state what is and how it is, without 
concerning myself with what it might or should have been. I derive 
not all languages from one ; Noah's ark is a closed castle to me, and 
for me the tower of Babel may remain in perfect peace." * 

M. Klaproth, also, disclaims the intention of deriving all languages 
from one primitive tongue ; but he makes these singular remarks : — 
" The wide dispersion of the Indo-Germanic f race took place pro- 
bably before the flood of Noah : besides, it is the only Asiatic one 
which appears to have descended after that event from two high 
mountains ; namely, from the Himalaya into India and Middle Asia, 
and on the west from the Kaukasus into Asia Minor and Europe. In 
India this race mixed itself much with the dark-coloured aborigines, 
and, though its speech predominated, its physical characteristics were 
deteriorated ; as has ever been the case when a mixture has taken 
place between a white and black or brown race ; when the physical 
qualities of the latter, and the moral qualities of each undergo an 
inevitable change. The brown or negro-like aborigines of India 

* Adelung's Mithridates, preface, p. xi. 

f Under this name M. Klaproth includes Indians, Persians, Afghans, Kurds, Modes, 
Ossetes, Armenians, Slavonians, Germans, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, English, Greeks, 
Romans, and all the people who speak a language derived from Latin. 

F F 



218 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

probably saved themselves, during the flood of Noah, on the high 
mountains of Malabar and the Ghauts. * In the dialects of the 
southern parts of India there appears to be a number of roots and 
words received from the aborigines, and some remains of such words 
may perhaps be found among the wild mountain-people in the 

northern parts From Kaukasus another branch of this stem seems 

to have descended upon the banks of the Caspian Sea, and proceeded 
into Media; and thence peopled Persia. Afterwards they probably 
migrated into Asia Minor, and first into southern, and then into 
northern Europe," f 

But, if the Mosaic history be set aside, it is perfectly evident that 
all speculations respecting the original peopling of the world can rest 
on no foundation whatever ; for the first dawning of profane tradition 
and history is scarcely discernible earlier than 1200 or 1300 years 
B. C. It is impossible, therefore, to determine what may have been 
' the previous state of the world, or to ascertain the origin of the 
languages which then prevailed: but, judging from their internal 
evidence, it seems indisputable that neither Greek, Latin, nor Gothic 
are original tongues, and, consequently, other languages must have 
previously existed from which they were formed. One of these is 
discoverable in Sanscrit, from which one seventh of the primitive 
words of Greek, Latin, and Gothic have been derived, but whence did 
the remaining six sevenths originate ? It is the same with most other 
languages ; for it is now impossible to ascertain the source from which 
Hebrew and Arabic have received the words not common to both, or 
the Teutonic dialects the words which are found in one and not in all 
of them. In the course, also, of these Researches, it has equally 
appeared that the Sanscrit, Arabic, Persian, Tartar, and Celtic are 
original and distinct languages which bear no relation to each other. 
It seems, therefore, necessarily to follow that no traces of the existence 
of a primitive tongue can now be discovered, and that all languages 

* So in the original, but M. Klaproth might have known that the Ghauts were the same 
as the mountains of Malabar. 
f Asia Polygiotta, p. 43, 44. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 219 

bear not an affinity to each other, and, consequently, that the people 
who originally spoke them could not possibly be all branches of one 
and the same stem. Conclusions which are so strongly supported by 
geography, chronology, and history that they cannot be invalidated 
by mere conjectures, which pretend not to rest on any other grounds 
than the imagination of the system-maker. 

If, however, these observations be correct, it must be admitted that 
the filiation of languages has been hitherto misunderstood ; and that 
their classification, in consequence, must have been equally erroneous. 
On this last point the reviewer of Adelung's Mithridates, in the 
Quarterly Review *, observes, — " It appears to be most convenient to 
consider as separate languages, or as distinct species in a systematic 
classification, all those which require to be separately studied in order 
to be readily understood, and which have their distinct grammatical 
flexions and constructions ; and to regard as varieties only those 
dialects which are confessedly local and partial varieties of a language 

manifestly identical In order, however, to avoid too great a 

number of classes, which would arise from an inadequate comparison 
of languages imperfectly known, it may be proper in some cases to 
adopt a geographical character, as sufficient to define the limits of a 
class, or its subdivision into orders. We are thus obliged to employ 
an arrangement of a mixed nature, and this is what Professor Adelung 
has actually done." f But the reviewer admits that a perfect natural 
order of arrangement of languages ought to be regulated by their 
descent from each other, and by their affinities ; and, no doubt, this 
is the only proper manner of rendering their filiation and relation to 
each other satisfactorily apparent. 

In which case the arranging under the term Indo-European Sanscrit, 
Median, Arabian, Greek, German, Celtic, Latin, Cantabrian, Celtic, 
Slavic, must not only be erroneous, but must tend to create error and 

* I am particularly induced to notice this article, in consequence of its having been 
transferred in great part into the fifth volume of the supplement of the Encyclopaedia 
Britannica under the title " Language." 

f Quarterly Review, vol. x. p. 252. 

F F 2 



220 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

confusion : for there is no such language as Median ; and. Sanscrit, 
Arabic, and Celtic bear not the slightest relation, even geographical, 
to each other. The subdivisions of the reviewer are equally objec- 
tionable : because to place so well known and so long cultivated a 
language as Persian under such an unknown term as Median is 
contrary to every principle ; and equally so to place the vernacular 
dialects of India* under the head of Sanscrit, as they are neither 
derived from it, nor have in their structure any affinity with it. But, 
in all classification of languages, the principal object ought to be the 
conducting the mind with correctness and facility from a consideration 
of the primitive to that of its derivatives ; or, if the parent tongue be 
extinct, by still assigning it a place, in order that the relation which 
its descendants bear to each other may be perfectly apparent. In the 
annexed Table, therefore, the propriety of the arrangement will, 
perhaps, be obvious ; for the languages contained in it are classed 
according to their actual affinities, and not according to any geo- 
graphical or hypothetical system. It cannot, also, be denied that, 
although an acquaintance with any one of these languages does not 
command the knowledge of another, still a conversancy with Latin 
will greatly facilitate the acquisition of Sanscrit, and an Englishman will 
learn German with more ease than an Italian, while the latter (were 
they to study Latin as men) would no doubt acquire this language 
with "much greater facility than the Englishman. But a knowledge 
of Sanscrit, Latin, or English would be of no utility in facilitating the 
acquisition of Celtic, Arabic, or Persian. Languages, therefore, so 
totally distinct from each other ought never to be included in the 
same class, as such an arrangement merely tends to perplex, and not 
to facilitate a consideration of the subject. 

* To include Moors (Hindustani) among these dialects is still more extraordinary : for 
Adelung has very correctly observed that the Mongol-Indostani, or Moorish, is a mixture of 
the vernacular dialect of Agra and Delhi with Persian and Arabic ; and, consequently, such 
a jargon has no right to a place in a classification of languages and their subdivisions. 

The Deccan, also, of the reviewer is a jargon composed of Telinga, Canara, Maratha, 
Arabic, and Persian, occasionally used, I believe, in the province of Beejapore only, and 
probably invented by the foreign soldiery of the Bhamani and Adil Shahi dynasties. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



FILIATION OF LANGUAGES. 



221 



BABYLONIAN, OR SANSCRIT. 

Language of Asia Minor. 

, 1 , 

Latin. Greek.* Thracian, extinct. 



i r i i I i 

French. Italian. Spanish, &c. Anglo-Saxon. German. Swedish, &c. 



SYRIA AND ARABIA. 



Parent extinct. 

r 1 1. 

Hebrew. Arabic. Syriac, &c. 



DISTINCT LANGUAGES WITHOUT AFFINITIES. 

Persian in Asia. Celtic in Europe. 



* I consider Greek to be the same as the language of Asia Minor, see Chapter VII., but 
the above arrangement is necessary on account of the difference which exists between Greek 
and the Latin and Thracian. 



222 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

INDIA. 

North of the River Krishna. 
Parent extinct. * 



Marat'tha. 


Gurjrate. 


Hindi. Bengali. 


1 
Panjabi. 




South 


of the River Krishna. 
Parent extinct, f 




"amil. 


Malayalam. 


Telinga. Canara. 


1 
Tulava 



In this article of the Quarterly Review, every philological error 
which it is the object of these Researches to refute seems to have 
been collected together with a singular precision. For the reviewer 
observes, — " The Indo-European languages we have referred to a 
single class, because every one of them has too great a number of 
coincidences with some of the others, to be considered as merely 
accidental, and many of them in terms relating to objects of such 
a nature, that they must have been rather original than adoptive. 
The Sanscrit, which is confessedly the parent language of India ? 
may easily be shown to be intimately connected with the Greek, 
Latin, and the German, although it is a great exaggeration to assert 
anything like its identity with either of these languages." If the 

* If a name be required for this language, it may be called that of Kanyakubja 
or Kanoge. 

f This language might be called Andhra, as there seems no doubt that the Telinga, or 
Telugu, approaches the nearest to the parent tongue ; and the use of the Sanscrit word 
would leave the vernacular term as the distinctive appellation of the Telinga dialect. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 223 

term identical be here used in its strict sense, I am not aware that 
any writer ever expressed such an opinion, or ever contended for 
more than what the reviewer himself admits. But the slightest 
knowledge of Sanscrit and the vernacular dialects of India would 
have prevented Adelung from hazarding such a remark as this, and 
the reviewer from so implicitly adopting it, — " The Sanscrit, even 
in its earliest state, can scarcely have been altogether uniform through- 
out all the countries in which it was spoken, and it has degenerated 
by degrees into a great diversity of modern dialects." * Such, how- 
ever, is invariably the consequence of a writer of reputation discuss- 
ing a subject with which he is unacquainted ; for, however erroneous 
may be the opinions respecting it which he expresses, they are certain 
of being adopted by other persons : but the reviewer might have 
been aware that there were not at the time when Adelung wrote, 
nor are there even now, materials before the public sufficient to 
enable the most ingenious and best qualified philologist to form a 
correct judgment of the languages of India, if he be himself actually 
unacquainted with them. 

It would, however, be a tedious repetition of preceding remarks, 
were I to notice all the errors which are, in my opinion, contained 
in this article ; and I find it impossible to ascertain any leading 
principles by which the reviewer's classification of languages, or his 
observations respecting their origin, have been regulated. For he 
adopts none of the hypotheses before discussed, nor does he 
substitute any new system in their place ; but he concurs in opinion 
with Adelung, that " Greek can only have been immediately derived from 
the language of the neighbouring Thracians and Pelasgians, who seem 
to have come originally from the middle of Asia through the countries 

* Experience proves, on the contrary, that as mankind unite into larger bodies, the 
dialects of different tribes become amalgamated into one uniform language, and no instance 
can be produced of an improved language degenerating of itself into a number of dialects. 
Foreign influence, as in the case of Latin, or the subsequent division of a people once thus 
united into distinct and independent communities or states, may effect this, but nothing 
else will ever occasion such a change. 



224 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

north of the Black Sea, and to have occupied part of Asia Minor as 
well as Greece and Thrace." He also thinks that " with the German 
it is easy to find a number of very near approaches to identity, even 
in the Celtic which can be proved to be prior to the date of any 
known or supposed mixture ;" and that the Latin is too evidently 
derived from the Celtic mixed with Greek, to require particular 
comparison. He likewise, with Adelung, considers the Thracians 
to be a distinct people from the Germans ; and the reviewer seems 
even to suppose that the Germans and Goths were different people. 

But, if the assumption of Adelung that the world was peopled from 
Middle Asia be unfounded, it must necessarily follow that all opinions 
respecting the origin of nations and their languages, which depend 
on this assumption alone, must be equally groundless. There exists 
not, however, the slightest indication in any ancient author that the 
earlier races of mankind had ever occupied Middle Asia ; and, had 
this been the actual case, it seems impossible that no fabulous or 
traditionary recollections of such a memorable circumstance should 
have been preserved, and that, on the contrary, the very existence 
of this country should have been unknown to the earliest writers. 
This assumption, also, rests on another assumption, for Adelung is 
obliged to argue in this manner : — " That all these principal races 
possessed peculiar languages distinct from each other is at once 
evinced by comparing their remains together. Besides, theory and 
experience prove that every language is so changed, according to the 
extent of time and space, that at their extreme limits new languages 
spontaneously form themselves out of it. For it is a fact attested by 
nature, as far as this earth is known, that one single language cannot 
predominate in a part of the world which is 150,000 miles square. 
In remote antiquity, also, mankind was divided into a number of 
independent tribes, who, from natural incompatibility, avoided all 
intercourse and connection ; and, consequently, a greater difference 
would have taken place in their languages and dialects than if they 
had been united into larger bodies. It is, therefore, easy to evince 
that the Iberian, the Celtic, the German, the Thracian, the Slavonian, 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 225 

and the Finnish were formerly, that is, at the commencement of our 
history, as distinct languages as their daughters are at the present 
day." * 

But this reasoning is evidently erroneous ; for experience proves 
that languages do not spontaneously form themselves, nor does a 
people change its mother tongue unless compelled to do so by foreign 
influence. From the time, therefore, that a language is once formed 
it will continue essentially the same, as long as the people speaking 
it remain the same ; and neither space nor time would of themselves 
occasion any alteration. The Greek was certainly not indigenous to 
Greece ; and yet, from the time of Thamyras and Orpheus to the 
capture of Constantinople, during the course of 2500 years, and during 
all the vicissitudes of so long an interval, it remained in every respect 
the same language. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that the 
Hebrew, Arabic, Persian, Sanscrit, and pure Celtic are in essentially 
the same state at the present day as they were 3000 years ago. If, 
therefore, mankind be the descendants of Noah and his sons, and 
if they originally inhabited Middle Asia, they must have all originally 
spoken the same language; and, consequently, if the world were 
peopled by migrations from that country, the colonists, however they 
might have improved the parent tongue by the invention of new terms 
to express new ideas, could not possibly have had any motive for 
changing the language to which they had been accustomed from their 
: nfancy, and by means of which alone they could have made them- 
selves intelligible to each other. On this supposition, also, in no part 
of the world were there any aborigines, whose speech might have 
exerted an influence over that of the immigrants and hence, as no 
conceivable cause can be assigned which could have produced any 
alteration in it, undeniable traces of this primitive tongue ought to 
be found, even at this day, in all known languages. But, as no 
identical terms can be found in Sanscrit, Arabic, Celtic, the 
dialects of Tartary, and, perhaps, other tongues, and as it is altogether 
unsupported by tradition and history, it must necessarily follow that 

* Adelung's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 7. 
G G 



226 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

the hypothesis of Adelung, and his account of the origin of nations 
and languages, rest on no grounds whatever. 

The affinities, also, ascribed by the reviewer to Celtic, have been, 
perhaps, sufficiently disproved in a former part of this work : but it is 
singular that a professed critic should quote Cour de Gebelin as 
authority on this subject j for his identifications of Celtic words with 
those of other languages err against every principle of etymology, 
and deserve, therefore, the censure and not the approbation of 
criticism. It would, however, have been very desirable, had the 
reviewer explained where that Celtic was to be found, which was 
prior to the date of any known or supposed mixture with Gothic and 
Latin ; because the difficulty of forming a decisive opinion respecting 
the affinities of this language, proceeds entirely from the great number 
of apparently exotic words which it contains. For, if it could be 
proved that the Gothic and Latin words that now abound in it were 
originally Celtic, it must be at once admitted that it was from this 
language that Latin and the Teutonic dialects derived their origin: 
but, until this is satisfactorily established, it must be concluded that 
conquest and the introduction of a new religion exerted the same 
influence in Gaul, Britain, and Ireland, that they have done in every 
other part of the world ; and, consequently, that the Gothic and 
Latin words now found in Celtic are exotic and not original. * 

The reviewer's opinion respecting the Arabian family is equally 
inaccurate. For he remarks that, " though not intimately connected 
with the European languages, it is well known to have afforded some 

* The author of the Vindication of the Celts, however, asserts, in p. 57., " that the Welsh 
contains above 20,000 words similar to the Greek," and gives as examples such words as 
these : — W. ambylu, G. ot^Xvm ; W. dagru, G. Saxpuw ; W. deuddeg, G. SwSsxa ; 
W. dianghelu, G. SiayyeAAw ; W. dyddyscu, G. MavKM ; W. garan, G. yepuvo; ; W. haredd, 
G. ocipsa-is ; W. llaith, G. Aijflij ; W. mel, G. jw.eA* ; W. genad, G. yevenj. But he does not 
mention whether these words are in common use or not ; and the mere inspection of 
the examples given by this writer is sufficient to evince that they are not such primitive 
words as might have remained in any two languages derived from a common origin, but 
evidently such as were likely to be communicated by the missionaries of a new religion, 
who were obliged to remedy the defects of the vernacular tongue by the introduction of 
numerous foreign terms. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 227 

few words to the Greek and Latin : and it has, also, some terms in 
common with the Sanscrit*, though apparently fewer than German." 
But the latter part of this remark is altogether erroneous ; and the 
former is equally so, unless such etymologies as these are admitted as 
proofs in support of it: — Hebrew, ebas, saginavit ; Greek, £o<ncw; 
Latin, pasco : H. ebek, pulvis ; G. irvypvi : H. ahab, amavit ; G. uyocnuu : 
Arabic, silf, coaffinis; G. ahxtpog: H. nir, lux; G. Xetgiov : H. arab, in- 
sidiatus est, G. u^na.'Qa : H. ael, cervus ; G. eX<x<pos : H. azen, auscultavit ; 

Q.ovag: H. butz, bySSUS ; G. xXxGoitrr^ov : H. bor, arsit ; G. ^vj^uXXog:' 

H. shekar, mentitus est ; L. scurra : H. shehad, testis ; L. testis : H. 

tsar, lotus ; L. tessera : H. sherat, ministerium ; L. sartago : H, lahat, 

Jlamma ; L. laterna : H. lehab, fiamma ; L. lampas : H. ebeh, densus 

fuit ; L. opacus : H. aneb, uva ; L. uva : H. ezar, juvit ; L. uxor : H. 

tur, explanavit ; L. tiro, f 

According to either the Scythian, the Celtic, or the Gothic hypo- 
thesis, no difficulty presents itself in accounting for the original 
peopling of Germany ; but the supposition of Adelung, adopted by 
his reviewer, that this country was first occupied at some remote 
period by emigrants from Middle Asia, is much too improbable to be 
admitted. For it is impossible to read the description of the state of 
Germany in the first century of the Christian era, as given by Tacitus, 
without being convinced that this country had been but recently 
peopled, and that its inhabitants had no pretensions to that remote 
antiquity which is ascribed to them by Adelung. " Terra," says that 
celebrated historian, " etsi aliquando specie differt, in universum tamen 
aut sylvis horrida aut paludibus fceda : humidior qua Gallias, ventosior 
qua Noricum ac Pannoniam aspicit : satis ferax, frugiferarum arborum 
impatiens, pecorum fcecunda, sed plerumque improcera. Ne armentis 

* The examples given by the reviewer are, Chaldaic, bar, city ; Sanscrit, bara, buri 
(there is no such Sanscrit word as this, but it may be intended fox pari); German, burg: 
Hebrew, ben, son ; Sanscrit, bun (this word is not Sanscrit), child : Hebrew, esh ,• Chaldaic, 
eshta, fire ,- Sanscrit, aster (not Sanscrit) : Hebrew, ish, man ; Sanscrit, isha, man or 
lord (this word never signifies man in Sanscrit). 

f These few examples, which might have been greatly increased, are taken from 
Townsend's History of Moses, and Cour de Gebelin's Monde Primitif. 

G G 2 



228 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

quidem suus honor, aut gloria frontis, numero gaudent, eaeque solse 
et gratissimse opes sunt. Argentum et aurum propitii an irati dii 

negaverint, dubito Nullas Germanorum populis urbes habitari, 

satis notum est, ne pati quidem inter se junctas sedes Tegumen 

omnibus sagum, fibula, aut si desit, spina, consertum ; caetera intecti, 
totos dies juxta focum atque ignem agunt." 

Probability, however, and consonancy with the indications afforded 
by history, tradition, affinity of language, or even geographical position, 
are restrictions much too inconvenient to be in the slightest decree 
regarded by the framers or supporters of a hypothesis. For the 
following is the manner in which Adelung explains the system which 
he maintains : — " Europe is indebted for its inhabitants to Asia ; for 
Middle Asia was the ancient and abundant nursery of mankind, from 
which the northern parts of Asia, Europe, and America were peopled : 
but Africa seems to have received its inhabitants from the south-west 
of Asia. It is, also, probable that migration proceeded by land, as 
this was the mode which nature herself pointed out ; as it was not 
until a very late period that navigation acquired that perfection which 
could have induced the different tribes, with their families and herds, 
to trust themselves to so perilous an element as the sea. These 
migrations, however, lie deeply concealed in the darkness of antiquity, 
but many circumstances render them apparent ; since, at the com- 
mencement of history, the whole of Europe from the Don to the Tagus 
was occupied by people different in race and language, in consequence 
of the great intermixtures and revolutions which they had undergone. 
But among them we find six principal races, distinguished from each 
other by their origin * and their languages, which possessed Europe 
from west to east in the following order : — 1 . Iberians with the Can- 
tabrians in Spain, part of Gaul, and on the coasts of the Mediterranean 
as far as Italy. 2. Celts in Gaul, the British Isles, the country 
between the Danube and the Alps, and part of Italy. 3. Germans 
between the Rhine, the Danube, and the Vistula, as far as the remotest 

* So in the original, herkunft ,■ but, if they all originally migrated from Middle Asia, 
their origin must have been the same. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 229 

parts of the north. 4. Thracians with the Illyrians in the south-east 
of Europe and Western Asia. 5. Slaves in the north, and, 6. Finns 
in the north-east of Europe. In this order was Europe first occupied 
by these races, and in this manner did a continual accession of 
numbers and a successive impulse from the east propel the first 
occupants towards the west, until natural boundaries prevented all 
further retrogression; and these races finally and permanently retained 
the countries which I have just described, and in which their de- 
scendants are, in a great measure, to be found at the present day." * 

But this system, as far as it relates to the Germans, is a once refuted 
by the undeniable fact that German, even in its most ancient state, 
is not an original language, and, consequently, the Germans cannot be 
admitted to be a primitive and unmixed race. It is in vain that 
Adelung contends that, " if we consider all the people who inhabit 
the country situated within the above-mentioned limits (viz. from the 
Danube on the south to the farthest north, and from the Rhine on the 
west to the Vistula on the east) as one whole, we must decide that 
they are a primitive and self-existing race, perfectly distinct from all 

their neighbours That these people should originally have been 

connected with other ancient and more distant people is apparent 
from the very nature of things, and is also proved by identical terms 
which still remain in their languages ; but the time of this remote 
connection lies so far beyond the confines of history, and so deeply 
concealed in the darkness of their original abode in Asia, that neither 
philologist nor antiquarian can make any further use of this cir- 
cumstance, than to demonstrate the common origin of the Germans 
and the people in whose languages identical terms are found." f For, 
if the cause which has produced the common words found in any two 
languages is to be referred to the original abode of the people speaking 
them in Middle Asia, it must be evident that this system becomes 
identical with the old hypothesis which maintains the existence of 
a primitive tongue, and that Adelung's division of the people of 

* Adelung's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 3, 4% 
f Ibid., p. 168. 



230 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

Europe into six races, distinct in origin and language, contradicts the 
fundamental principle of his own system. 

Adelung's account of the Thracians is equally inadmissible ; for he 
remarks, — " There is no doubt but that this race, as well as all the 
other people of Europe, migrated from the high land of Middle Asia. 
But their migration must have been one of the last, as we find them 
situated in the eastern parts ; although, also, it took place before the 
commencement of history, still there appear to have been two roads 
by which the emigrants might have proceeded, one to the north and 
the other to the south of the Black Sea. The latter seems the nearest 
and most natural, as there was merely the Hellespont to pass over : 
but, when one considers that the Thracians were always weak in Asia 
Minor, and on the contrary were numerous and powerful in Europe, 
and that the time when the latter migrated from Asia was unknown, 
and that Homer frequently mentions the Thracians of Europe, it must 
appear most probable that, when they migrated, it was to the north 
of the Black Sea that they proceeded from Middle Asia to the 
Danube." * But it is obvious that this supposition is in direct con- 
tradiction to history, both sacred and profane : for, if any point of 
remote antiquity seems indisputable, it is that the peopling of Europe 
proceeded from Asia Minor; and, most particularly, the very part 
which the Thracians first occupied most clearly proves that they 
could have migrated from no other country than Asia Minor. It is in 
this respect that the absurdity of Adelung's system becomes so self- 
evident. Because, had he conducted his emigrants from the high 
land of Middle Asia through India, Persia, and Asia Minor, across the 
Hellespont and Thracian Bosphorus into Europe, his system would 
at least have had plausibility to recommend it, and it might, also, have 
been in part supported by the Sanscrit words contained in Greek, 
Latin, Persian, and Gothic. But the slightest inspection of a map will 
show how utterly improbable it is that, in the early state of the world, 
when, except in the countries just mentioned, the earth was uncul- 
tivated, covered with forests and morasses, and traversed by deep and 

* Adelung's Mithridates, vol . ii. p. 340. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 231 

impassable rivers, any bodies of men could possibly have migrated 
through the countries lying to the north of the Caspian and Euxine 
Seas, from Thibet to the Danube. 

No point, also, is better established by the concurrent testimony 
of ancient and modern writers, than that the Goths were not the 
descendants of the Germans. But Adelung includes them among the 
Germans, and observes, ■ — " Amongst the ancient and now extinct 
people who belonged to this race, the Goths were the most eastern 
and the most renowned ; but they incorporated with themselves a 
multitude of other people of distinct races and languages. It seems 
probable, however, that they are the only ancient German people of 
whose language any written monument has been preserved; as we 
have important remains of it in Ulphilas's translation of the Bible." * 
Whether, however, the Goths are considered to have been originally 
Scythians or Scandinavians, or, as I think most probable, Thracians, 
it is undeniable that, though the Germans may have descended from 
them, they cannot be admitted to be the descendants of the Germans, 
unless every circumstance which constitutes historical evidence be 
entirely disregarded. 

When, therefore, the inconsistencies and contradictions which are 
so evident in the hypotheses that have been examined in this work, 
and their inadequacy to explain the origin and affinity of languages, are 
considered, it will, perhaps, be admitted that not one of them rests on 
any sufficient grounds. But, if the cause of the striking coincidences 
which exist in some languages proceeds not from the prevalence 
among mankind, at some period in remote antiquity, of a primitive 
tongue, into which supposition all these hypotheses actually resolve 
themselves, it must necessarily follow that the principle on which 
such researches have been hitherto conducted is erroneous. The 
contempt, also, with which etymology is treated, and the apparent 
conviction which prevails that the result] of etymological disquisitions 
can never amount to presumption, far less to evidence, must be 
received as strong proofs that the methods hitherto adopted in the 

# Adelung's Mithridates, vol. ii. p. 183. 



232 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

investigation of the affinities of languages have been not only in- 
efficient but ridiculous. Still, it is admitted that the origin and 
affinity of nations may be satisfactorily demonstrated by affinity of 
language. Dr. Young, likewise, in an Essay on Probabilities, pub- 
lished in the Philosophical Transactions, " has remarked that ' nothing 
whatever could be inferred, with respect to the relation of two lan- 
guages, from the coincidence of the sense of any single word in both 
of them ; ' that is, supposing the same simple and limited com- 
binations of sounds to occur in both, but to be applied accidentally to 
the same number of objects, without any common links of connection : 
' and that the odds would only be three to one against the agreement 
of two words ; but, if three words appeared to be identical, it would 
be more than ten to one that they must be derived, in both cases, 
from some parent language, or introduced in some other manner,' 
from a common source; '• six words would give near 1700 chances 
to one, and eight near 100,000;' so that in these last cases the 
evidence would be little short of absolute certainty." * 

On these principles, consequently, the existence of 339 Sanscrit 
words in Greek, 319 in Latin, 263 in Persian, 162 in German, 251 
in English, and 31 in all of them, must incontrovertibly prove 
that these languages must have been derived from a common origin. 
But I have, no doubt, evinced that Sanscrit is a perfectly original 
tongue, and not derived from any other ; and that, though Persian has 
received many words from Sanscrit, still its dissimilarity in gram- 
matical structure disproves its derivation from it, and renders it a 
distinct language. There hence remains only Greek, Latin, German, 
and English, which can be considered as derivatives from Sanscrit ; 
but the two latter spring evidently from one origin. It is equally 
evident that the affinity of these six languages could not have 
existed, had not an intimate connection subsisted at some period 
among the different people who spoke them ; and I have, perhaps, 
sufficiently proved that these languages bear no relation whatever to 

* I take this quotation from the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 
vol. v. p. 222. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 233 

Celtic, Arabic, or the dialects of Tartary. But, when these people 
first became known to history, they inhabited India, Persia, Greece, 
Italy, and Germany ; and innumerable circumstances evince that no 
intercourse between them could have prevailed for many centuries 
previously. Unless, therefore, the common origin of such widely 
separated people, and the distinctness of their race from that of the 
nations who surrounded them, are satisfactorily demonstrated, and 
unless the incidents of their separation, and of the changes introduced 
into their parent tongue, are explained in a perfectly consistent manner, 
the fallaciousness of any hypothesis respecting their origin and affinity 
must be self-evident. 

But, in all the systems on the subject hitherto proposed, the most 
material part of the question, the existence of Sanscrit in Greek, 
Latin, Gothic, and Persian, has not been taken into consideration, and, 
consequently, the real relation which these languages bear to each 
other could not be understood. It now, however, appears that the 
affinity which was supposed to exist between them was no proof that 
any one of them was derived from another ; because this affinity pro- 
ceeds from their derivation from, or connection with, Sanscrit, in which 
language most of the words common to Greek and Latin, or to Gothic 
and Persian, can still be discovered. Gothic, therefore, was not derived 
from Persian, according to the Scythian hypothesis, a supposition, at 
the same time, which is completely disproved by the radical dissimi- 
larity of the two languages in words, except such as are derived from 
Sanscrit, and in grammatical structure ; nor has Persian any further 
affinity with Greek and Latin. It hence necessarily follows that the 
people who spoke Sanscrit must have inhabited a country situated 
between Persia and Europe. But the concurrent authority of ancient 
writers attests that Latium and Hetruria received their language from 
Asia Minor ; and I have, perhaps, shown by philological arguments 
that Latin is not derived from Greek. The extreme similarity, how- 
ever, of the two languages equally proves that the ancestors of the 
Greeks and Latins must have been originally the same people, and, 
consequently, that they must have originally inhabited Asia Minor. 

II H 



234 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

That Greek, also, was actually the language of this country seems 
proved by many circumstances, which I have stated in the Seventh 
Chapter ; and, therefore, as the first poets who employed this language 
were Thracians, it irresistibly follows that the Thracians, also, originally 
inhabited Asia Minor, and were the very same people as the ancestors 
of the Greeks and Romans. Nor can their migration from Asia 
Minor, and their subsequent occupation of the country which extended 
from Macedonia along the Hellespont to the Euxine Sea, and thence 
to the shores of the Baltic, be disputed on any grounds which do not 
at the same time contradict both probability and history. Admit, 
therefore, that Babylonia was the primeval seat of the Sanscrit 
tongue, and that from this country Asia Minor derived its language, 
which was thence communicated by the Pelasgi to Thracia, Greece, 
Latium, and Hetruria, and that a colony from Babylonia once exercised 
a predominating influence in Persia ; and the origin and affinity of 
Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Persian, and Gothic are thus explained in a 
manner the most consistent and probable, and the most consonant 
with all indications respecting remote antiquity which are afforded by 
geography, chronology, and history. 

But these conclusions explain not the origin of the languages to 
which these six bear no affinity, nor even of, perhaps, six sevenths 
of the simple words of the language of Asia Minor. To evince, 
however, this very circumstance is one of the objects of this work ; 
because it appears to me that as long as the existence of a primitive 
tongue, whether the Hebrew, the Scythian, the Celtic, the Gothic, or 
that of Middle Asia*, continues a received opinion, no beneficial 

* I have not taken any notice of the system of Cour de Gebelin, which he explains, 
Monde Primitif, torn. viii. p. xiv., in these words, — " Qu'ainsi il n'existe qu'une langue, une 
langue eternelle et immuable puisee dans la nature raisonnable, et dont les hommes n'ont 
jamais pu se detourner : que par consequent toutes les langues existantes ne sont que des 
modifications de cette langue universelle, a laquelle il est aise de les ramener, en les 
comparant entr'elles et avec elle :" because I must confess that it is completely beyond my 
comprehension. As the reader, however, may be more successful in understanding it, I 
transcribe the following passage : — "En effet, le raport des langues ne consiste pas 
simplement dans la ressemblance de leurs mots, dans cette ressemblance qui se reconnoit par 
les memes lettres et par le mime sens, et qui a lieu pour la masse des mots de deux langues 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 235 

result can possibly be derived from etymological researches. Adelung, 
in the Preface to his Mithridates, professes to describe merely what 
is and how it is ; and, had he restricted himself to such disquisitions, 
the value of his work would have been greatly increased : but man 
can never be contented with an account of things as they actually 
exist, and have existed from a certain known time, but wishes, in order 
to discover their hidden origin, to penetrate into the remotest and 
darkest secrets of nature. With respect, however, to languages, this 
wish is obviously vain : for the origin of nations cannot be ascertained 
by the means of history ; and the most laborious etymological re- 
searches will merely render evident that all languages cannot possibly 
be derived from one primitive tongue, and, consequently, that all the 
various races of mankind now existing cannot have descended from 
one common parent.* If, therefore, the etymologist persist in com- 
pelling all languages to depose to an identity which does not exist, it 
must be obvious that the result of such etymological tortures must 
exhibit such an appearance of improbability and contradiction to 
common sense, as to render it totally undeserving of attention : but, 
if he confine himself merely to tracing the real affinities of languages, 
he will be enabled to elucidate at least the origin of some of the 
people of this world ; and, by a continuation of researches conducted 
on the same plan, the affinity, if not the actual origin, of all nations 
might at length be demonstrated with the utmost certainty. 



semblables C'est un raport beaucoup plus etendu, plus vague, moins caracterise, 

qui exige de tout autres yeux pour etre saisi, qui ne peut etre que le resultat d'un tres- 
grand nombre de comparaisons, qui ne considere pas les mots un a, un, mais par grandes 
masses ; non les individus, mais les especes," &c. — Monde Primitif, torn. iii. p. 273. 

* I ought to add, unless the miracle which occasioned the total confusion of tongues be 
admitted ; because, in that case, the radical diversity of languages would be no argument 
against the authenticity of the Mosaic history. 



H H 2 



PART II. 



N.B. In Oriental words written in Roman characters, the vowels and diphthongs are to 
be pronounced as in Italian, and the consonants as in English ; with exception of g, which 
is always to be pronounced hard, its soft sound being represented byj. 



PART II. 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 



I am perfectly aware of the ridicule to which etymologists, in general, so 
deservedly expose themselves : but, as it is universally admitted that 
the filiation of the different races of mankind, at those early periods 
of the world respecting which history is silent, may be satisfactorily 
determined by affinity of language, the extravagancies of etymologists 
ought not to prove prejudicial to researches of so much importance, if 
conducted on self-evident principles. For, if two words of distinct lan- 
guages, similar or nearly similar in sound, bear precisely the same signifi- 
cation, the identity of such words cannot with any reason be disputed. 
Should, also, their meanings be not the same, but the difference consist 
merely in one of the significations being such as might arise from a 
natural connection of ideas, and the sound of the words be at the same 
time similar, little doubt can exist with regard to their identity. For 
instance, the Sanscrit kumam a lake and xvpcc a wave, stoma the head 
and o-Topot. the mouth, btilam an army and bellum war, or even mcira 
killing and mar a snake, are clearly identical terms. As long, there- 
fore, as the etymologist confines his identification of words to those 
only which agree in sound and meaning, he proceeds on the surest 
grounds ; and, forjudging of the justness of his conclusions, nothing- 
farther is necessary, than the mere inspection of the words of the 
different languages which he compares together. The person who is 
acquainted and he who is unacquainted with the languages compared, 



240 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

are equally capable of observing coincidences of so plain and evident a 
nature. It is by these simple principles,which seem to me incontrovert- 
ible, that I have been guided in selecting the words contained in the 
following Table ; I have in no instance identified such words as soma 
the moon with a-apa the body, or suria the sun with sura the leg, and I 
have even abstained from producing any words, the identification of 
which could not have been rendered apparent without entering into 
grammatical and etymological discussions. 

Sir W. Jones has observed, — " I beg leave as a philologist to enter 
my protest against conjectural etymology in historical researches, 
and principally against the licentiousness of etymologists in transposing 
and inserting letters, in substituting at pleasure any consonant for 
another, and in totally disregarding the vowels." * To the general 
justness of this remark I fully subscribe : but the slightest attention 
to the dialects of the Greek language, and to the patois of any country, 
will at once evince that the identity and intelligibility of words do 
not depend on the manner in which the vowels contained in them are 
pronounced. No doubt the identity of the words of any two lan- 
guages which may be compared together, will be most satisfactorily 
established by the identity or close similarity of the vowels ; but, if 
when the vowels are most dissimilar the meaning is exactly the same, 
it may be reasonably inferred that the words also are identical. 
For instance, it will scarcely be maintained that mira and mare are not 
identical terms, since they both signify the sea; gala and gula, both 
signifying the throat; and okam and oizov, both signifying a house. 
As, also, no two nations ever possessed alphabetical and grammatical 
systems precisely the same, it must be obvious that words could not 
pass from the one into the other without undergoing some change 
in their consonants. Were, indeed, the identity of no words to be 
admitted, except of such as exactly corresponded in their vowels and 
consonants, the etymologist might at once cease his labours, for very 
few such words can be found. 

But Sir W. Jones himself has observed, — " We know, a posteriori, 

* Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 139. 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 241 

that both Jitz and hijo, by the nature of two several dialects, are 
derived from Jilius ; that uncle comes from avus ; and stranger from 
extra; that jour is deducible, through the Italian, from dies; and 
rossignol from luscinia, or the singer in groves ; that sciuro, ecureuil, 
and squirrel are compounded of two Greek words descriptive of the 
animal ; which etymologies, though they could not have been demon- 
strated a priori, might serve to confirm, if any confirmation were 
necessary, the proofs of a connection between the members of one 
great empire." * If the term .a priori is here used in its strict sense, 
this remark is self-evident j for, until words had passed from one 
language into another, and suffered certain changes in consequence, it 
would have been impossible to know either that such changes would 
have been found necessary, or to specify their precise nature. But, 
after they had once taken place, nothing could be easier than the 
ascertaining the permutations which the component letters of the 
particular words had undergone, and whether these changes had pro- 
ceeded on any fixed principle : for, in this case, it might be justly 
inferred that in similar circumstances similar permutations would 
always take place ; and it is only by adhering to this rule that 
etymologies can ever be discovered or demonstrated. But, if it be 
shown that in words passing from any one language into another 
certain letters are always changed into others, and this postulatum be 
once admitted, it necessarily follows that, however dissimilar in sound 
the words compared may be, still, if the received principle applies to 
them, their identity cannot be disputed. The error, therefore, which 
etymologists commit, consists not in the permutation of letters, but in 
changing them arbitrarily, and without having first established that 
the permutations which they propose are sanctioned by the usage and 
genius of the languages compared. 

In comparing, however, Sanscrit with other languages, I have not 
been obliged to have recourse to such questionable etymologies as 
those pointed out by Sir W. Jones ; for the only permutation of 
letters which becomes requisite, is occasioned by the Greek and 

* Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 20. 
I I 



242 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Roman alphabets being defective in several letters peculiar to the 
Sanscrit alphabet. But, that many words of which these letters form 
component parts have passed into Greek and Latin, is demonstrated 
by these words retaining precisely the same signification. It becomes, 
therefore, necessary to ascertain, by a consideration of the alphabetical 
systems and grammatical structure of the languages compared together 
in the following Table, how far difference of sound ought to affect 
the identity of words, the meaning of which is precisely or nearly 
similar. 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEM. 

The Sanscrit alphabet consists of fifty-two letters, but only twenty- 
two distinct sounds ; the remaining twenty-eight letters being merely 
aspirations and modifications of these sounds.* To express, however, 
Sanscrit words in another language, it is indispensable that its alphabet 
should at least contain the following letters: — 

a, e, i, o, u, k, g hard, ch soft, j soft, t, d, n, p, 1, m, y consonant, r, 
1, w or v, sh, s, h. 

With respect to the sounds of these letters in Sanscrit, it may be 
observed that the vowels are pronounced as in Italian, and the con- 
sonants as in English f ; with the exception that g must be always 
pronounced hard, its soft sound being represented by j. It must 

* The vowels a, e, i, and u, have distinct characters for their long and short sounds ; 
there are three n's, two fs, two d's, two Z's, two sk's, two compound letters Jcsh and gn, 
four peculiar letters scarcely ever used, and the rest are merely aspirations of ten of the 
simple consonants, viz. Jc, g, ch,j, the two fs, the two d's, p, and b. 

I do not include as requisite the diphthongs ai, au, because, when pronounced properly, 
the sounds of the two vowels are distinctly perceptible. 

f I am aware that the t and d most commonly used in Sanscrit are pronounced much 
softer than in English, but it is impossible to note such modifications of sound of the same 
consonant by means of the Latin alphabet. 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEM. 243 

also be remarked that ch and sh * are simple sounds, represented both 
in the Sanscrit and Persian alphabets by single characters. 

The only Sanscrit letter respecting the pronunciation of which a 
difference of opinion prevails is the short a ; for Sir W. Jones thought 
that its sound might sometimes be conveniently expressed by e, as 
pronounced in men, and in this manner he has written the name of 
the celebrated lawgiver Manu. M. Bopp, also, has observed that 
" there is only one defect of which we may accuse the Sanscrit 
alphabet, namely, that the short a, the short Italian e, and o are not 
distinguished from one another. For I cannot believe that in the 
language of the Brahmans, when it was a vernacular tongue, the 
dkara had always the power of short a, and that the sounds of e and o 
never occurred in it ; I rather think that the sign used for the short a 
was put also to express a short e and o. If this was the case, it can be 
accounted for why in words common to the Sanscrit and the Greek, 
the Indian akara so often answers to e and o ; as for instance, asti, 
he is, e<m; patis, a husband, 7rorig; ambaras, the sky, op,£pog, rain; &c." f 
But the short a is considered to be inherent in all Sanscrit consonants, 
and is, therefore, never expressed by any sign, except at the beginning of 
words ; and, in all the attention which I have paid to the pronunciation 
of natives from all the different parts of India, I have never been able 
to detect any sounds similar to the Italian short e and o. I may add 
that, on more than one occasion, I have not been able to make myself 
immediately understood, by using the name Menu instead of Manu. 
In the pronunciation, however, of the short a by the natives them- 

* This is undoubtedly the pronunciation of the letter SJ throughout the whole of India ; 
for, that the pronunciation proposed by Sir W. Jones, and adopted by the Asiatic Society 
of Calcutta, is not even prevalent in Bengal, seems clearly proved by the missionaries of 
Serampore giving to this letter the sound of the English sh, equivalent to the French ch, 
and the German sch. 

f Annals of Oriental Literature, Part I. Barretti says, in his Grammatica della Lingua 
Inglese, prefixed to his Dictionary, with respect to e, — " II suono breve ha molta 
similitudine col nostro e, come nelle voci cellar, separate, celebrate, men, then. E, dinanzi a 
consonante raddoppiata o a due consonanti, e sempre breve, cioe, ha sempre il suono Italiano, 
come in relent, medlar," &c. 

The short sound of o is common to all the European languages, with scarcely any 
difference in its pronunciation ; but it does not exist in India. 

i i 2 



244 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

selves a considerable difference prevails : for, to the north of the 
Krishna, its sound is certainly very similar to the English u in the 
word sun, and the long a is proportionally shortened ; but, to the south 
of that river, the long a preserves its proper sound, and the short a is 
pronounced as in hand. But, in the former case, the representing this 
sound by u is not only contrary to all analogy, but renders the words 
used unintelligible to foreigners, as this pronunciation of u is peculiar 
to the English. The sound, therefore, which will most correctly 
represent this vowel, is that of a pronounced as short as may be 
consistent with the due preserving of its distinct sound ; and this will 
sufficiently account for its being changed into the short e and o of 
other languages. 

The visarga, a diacritical mark included by Sanscrit grammarians 
amongst the vowels, is represented by some writers by s; but its 
proper sound, in all parts of India, is a strong aspiration added to the 
vowel which precedes it, and, consequently, in Roman characters it 
becomes equivalent to //. It seems, however, very probable that, in 
several Greek and Latin terminations and inflections, this h has been 
changed into s. But, as this permutation does not always take place, 
it ought not to be assumed as a general rule, nor ought a sound to be 
given to the visarga which it does not possess : for it must be re- 
collected that the changes to which this vowel is subject, occur only 
when words are joined into the connected and artificial periods peculiar 
to Sanscrit composition ; and that, when this language is spoken, the 
words are not thus linked together, but pronounced with their full and 
proper sounds. This permutation also errs against the analogy of 
the Sanscrit language, because, whenever the crude nominative of a 
noun ends in a consonant, this consonant appears in the oblique cases ; 
as, manas, mens, manasah, mentis ; naman, nomen, namnah, nominis. 
If, therefore, the nominative case Ramah be written Romas, its 
genitive case ought to be Ramasasia, and not, as it actually is, Ra- 
masia ; and, in the same manner, if pita be written pitra, the genitive 
case ought to be pitrus, and not, as it actually is, pituh.* 

* This mode of representing the visarga in Roman characters, seems to have been 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEM. 245 

The pronunciation, likewise, of one of the compound consonants, 
$J, does not seem determined : for the Sanscrit grammarians consider 
it as composed of j and n; but, on the western side of India, it is 
pronounced at the beginning of words like the French gn t preceded 
by the slightly perceptible sound of a soft d, and in the middle of 
words in the same manner, except that the d receives a more distinct 
and forcible pronunciation, as, dgnanam, knowledge, adgna, an order ; 
were, therefore, the name of a celebrated lawgiver . to be pronounced 
Yajnawalkia, it would be unintelligible to the natives. A similar doubt 
exists with respect to the proper pronunciation of the Greek and 
Latin gn ; as it is clearly impossible to give to these letters their usual 
sounds in such words, as yvurog, gnarus. It is hence probable that 
the Greeks and Romans employed the gn, in some words at least, as a 
compound sound approaching to the French pronunciation ; and I 
have, consequently, considered it in Greek and Latin words as equi- 
valent to this Sanscrit compound letter. 

It requires farther to be observed that in Sanscrit the consonants 
are all sonant, the short a being considered annexed to each of them ; 
and that when they become mute the consonants which coalesce are 
represented by single distinct characters ; as, ^ ksha ; ^1 ktwa ; ^cf 
trasta ; £?J1^T Syandana. With regard to the n in the last word, it is 
most generally represented by a diacritical mark, named anuswar, 
placed over the consonant preceding the one to which the n is to be 
prefixed ; as ?3J<^5T, an d this is the orthography which I have adopted 
in the following Table.* This ingenious method of rendering the 



adopted for the purpose of rendering the affinity between the Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin 
languages more apparent : but it is quite unnecessary, and all identifications of words by 
means of arbitrary permutations repugnant to the analogy and grammatical structure of a 
language must be always considered as very questionable. 

* The anuswar is also used to represent the first of the ti's and the m, when forming 
the first letter of a connection of consonants, or a final m mute. In referring, therefore, to 
Wilson's Sanscrit Dictionary, the words in the following Table marked with anusxcar must 

♦ _ 

be sought for under the letters which it represents; as for instance, 3f^i under \5\ ^-. 
3f5f under 3fJ; 3f^X umlcr ^ST- 



246 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 



consonants mute cannot be made apparent in Roman characters ; 
and I have, therefore, in a few instances placed a bracket under the 
letters which ought to coalesce ; as, «-<tjl«1 siona, the sun ; the first 
three letters of which word form but one syllable in Sanscrit. 

It will hence appear that the Greek alphabet is deficient in the 
simple sounds of ch soft, j soft, w 9 and sh 9 and in most of the aspir- 
ations and modified sounds of the Sanscrit letters : but of the last the 
Greeks have either invented or preserved characters for the long 
sounds of two vowels in y\ and u ; and for three aspirations in 9, p, and 
X- The compound letters, however, in Greek, £", £, and if/, seem to 
have no corresponding sounds in Sanscrit. 

The Latin alphabet is deficient in the same simple sounds, and also 
in all the aspirations and modifications of the Sanscrit letters : but 
the Romans preserved the sound of w or v, though not a distinct 
character for representing it. 

The Persian alphabet contains all the simple and unmodified sounds 
of the Sanscrit, and, at the same time, possesses five other letters, 
viz kh guttural, z, zh represented by one character, and gh. The 
pronunciation of this last letter is so peculiar that it cannot be 
described ; but its sound partakes of g and r, and hence it is not 
unlikely that, on account of this singular pronunciation, the German 
gram 9 grief, may be derived from the Persian gharri signifying the same. 

The German alphabet is deficient in ch soft, the ch of this language 
being pronounced gutturally ; j soft, this letter being pronounced like 
the English y consonant ; and w, as this letter is pronounced as the 
English v, the v assuming in general the sound of/. 

The English alphabet, by means of either simple or compound 
letters, possesses all the simple and unmodified sounds of the Sanscrit ; 
and the annexing an h to a consonant is sufficient to indicate that the 
latter ought to be aspirated 

From these remarks it will be obvious that, unless a change of 
consonants were in some cases admissible, a very numerous class of 
Sanscrit words must necessarily be excluded from all comparison with 
those of other languages. But it is well known that, in the formation 



ALPHABETICAL SYSTEM. 



247 



of modern from ancient languages, certain consonants have suffered 
permutation ; and, with regard to the Sanscrit itself, Mr. Wilson has 
thus remarked in the Preface to his Sanscrit Dictionary, — " As to 
the various readings arising from compounding the different nasals and 
sibilants, and above all from the perpetual interchange of the letters 
b and v (written by me w), they are innumerable, and of almost im- 
possible adjustment ; the difficulty of separating them, indeed, seems 
to have been long ago insurmountable, and to have given rise to the 
following convenient rule, which renders the distinction a matter of 
perfect indifference ; the letters r and b, d * and 1, j and y, b and w, sh 
and s, a final visarga or its omission, are always optional, there being no 
difference between them." The consequences of this rule, at whatever 
time it may have been laid down, or rather perhaps the grounds on 
which it has been admitted as a received principle, become most 
apparent in the manner in which Sanscrit words have been naturalised 
in the various vernacular dialects of India ; for in all of them the 
interchange of b and w, of sh and s, of r and /, and of m and n, is very 
obvious. Besides these permutations, in Hindi and Gurjrate the sh 
and ksh are replaced by k, and the y is changed into j; as, ket, a field, for 
kshetram ; harak, joy, for harsha; and joban, a youth, for ywwan. But the 
greatest peculiarity in the adoption of Sanscrit words in most of these 
dialects, is the dissolution or omission of one of the compound con- 
sonants which so frequently occur in Sanscrit, particularly of r when- 
ever it enters into their composition, and the rejection of the final 
syllable of the nominative case of nouns : for instance, graham, a house, 
is changed into ghdr-, sdrpa, a serpent, into sap ; kripdna, a miser, into 

* This letter JjJ" is peculiar to the Sanscrit alphabet, and in sound partakes of d and r ; 
but, though all well educated natives give this letter a distinct pronunciation, which is 
unattainable by foreigners, it has always appeared to me that in most words the great body 
of the people give it precisely the same sound as r, and the rule just quoted supports this 
opinion, for its being interchangeable with I shows that in it the sound of r must 
predominate. In the beginning of words however, and, before n, it is always pronounced 
like d. 

In the following Table I have, in consequence, given this letter the sounds of both 
d and r. 



248 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 



kirpdn; dwdra, a door, into ddr ; widgra, into bdgh ; hasta, a hand, into 
hat ; skanda, a shoulder, into hdnda ; shushka, dry, into suka ; swarna, 
gold, into sona. The /c, also, of Sanscrit words is often omitted ; as, 
pdshaka, a die, pasha ; mrittika, earth, matt ; narikela, a cocoa-nut, narel. 

Of the identity of these words there can be no doubt, and they may, 
therefore, serve as examples of the changes which Sanscrit words may 
have undergone in passing into other languages. In availing myself, 
however, of these principles, I have been guided entirely by the 
meaning of the terms compared ; but, whenever this was the same, I 
have concluded that the words were also the same. For the identity 
of krernilam and xapjAof ; shunam, xwa, and canem ; takshate, a-Tsyerui, 
and tegit ; shushati and siccat ; kandati and scindit ; though these words 
have become altered in their pronunciation and orthography, will 
scarcely, I think, be contested. But I have not been able to satisfy 
myself that the changes incidental to Sanscrit words in passing into 
other languages have proceeded on any fixed principles. It seems, 
however, probable that, in Greek, j was changed into y, sh into x and 
occasionally into 9 and |, and ch into y, I find three words only 
beginning with ch, and the w is generally dropped, but sometimes 
changed into £. In Latin, ch is changed into c, and sometimes into 
qu ; j into g ; bh into f; and sh into s or c; and, in Persian^ I merely 
observe the occasional omission of the aspirated d, the change of sh 
into kh, and sometimes the rejection of the final syllable of the 
Sanscrit words ; for it will be seen in the following Table that, in 
Persian, madhiam is changed into midn, and widhazva into biwd, shuba 
into khub, and shukra into khuk. 

But it will no doubt excite surprise that, in the 900 Sanscrit words 
contained in the following Table, which have passed into five other 
distinct languages, so little change has taken place either in their 
vowels or consonants ; and that these changes are satisfactorily sup- 
ported by the primary or secondary meaning of the words compared 
being exactly similar. When, therefore, this simple and self-evident 
circumstance is contrasted with the strange and forced etymologies 
on which all etymologists have hitherto erected their systems, it will, 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 249 

perhaps, be admitted that these systems are totally erroneous. The 
derivation, consequently, of all languages from Hebrew, or the Greek 
and Latin from the Celtic or Gothic, or the Teutonic languages from 
the Scythian, unless it be established by an equal number of words, 
equally identical in sound and meaning, must now be considered to 
rest on no foundation whatever. 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 

Experience evinces that, in passing from one language into another, 
the apparent identity of words will be affected by the grammatical 
rules of the language in which they become naturalised ; for no two 
languages agree perfectly in their inflections, or in the changes to which 
the root is subjected previous to these inflections being joined to it. In 
the verbs, for instance, of Persian, German, and English, derived from 
Sanscrit, the root * only has being adopted, while in those of Greek 
and Latin most of the Sanscrit inflections have been preserved. As, 
however, the root is sufficient to prove the common origin of words 
belonging to different tongues, any enquiry into the grammatical 
structure of those contained in the following Table may seem un- 
necessary. But the degree of affinity which exists between distinct 
languages, and, consequently, the filiation of one people from another, 
can be satisfactorily demonstrated by similarity of grammatical struc- 
ture only : for commerce, conquest, and religion may introduce the 
single words of a foreign language into any country, without its 
inhabitants being descended from the people to whose mother tongue 
these words belonged. The Greek and Latin words contained in 

* Strictly speaking, not the root, but the third person singular of the present tense of the 
indicative mood of the active voice ; which is the part always used by the natives when 
speaking of a Sanscrit verb. 

K K 



250 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

English do not prove that the English people are descended from the 
Greeks and Romans. But the grammatical structure of a language 
must have been coeval with its origin, and is so indispensably requisite 
for its distinct existence, that, whenever the grammatical inflections 
of one language are found in another, no possible causes can be 
assigned for such a similarity, except that the one language was 
derived from the other, or that they both sprang from the same 
common source. 

Could, therefore, any words be produced from the Arabic class of 
languages which corresponded in sound and meaning with those of 
other tongues ; still the peculiar grammatical structure of the Arabic 
would evince that these words must have become common to the two 
languages from some accidental cause, and would, consequently, be no 
proof that any affinity whatever existed between them. For the 
Arabic and its cognate dialects are distinguished by their verbs having 
neither a present nor a future tense, by the persons of their solitary 
two tenses having a masculine and feminine gender, and by their total 
rejection of compound words, from all languages with which I am 
acquainted ; and from the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, by the paucity 
of inflections which apply to the Arabic noun and verb. For to me 
it seems absolutely impossible that any language, which had at first 
existed in the form of Arabic, could ever have so changed the 
grammatical principles on which it was formed, as to produce the 
numerous inflections, and the extensive system of composition of 
words, by which the Sanscrit and Greek are so preeminently dis- 
tinguished. 

Numerous inflections, however, are not essential to language, for 
their office is, perhaps, better performed by distinct words. But, 
though there are many instances of words losing the inflections which 
they once possessed, no example can, I believe, be produced of 
words acquiring inflections which did not belong to them on the 
original formation of the language. It is this circumstance which 
renders it particularly necessary to examine the grammatical structure 
of the languages contained in the following Table, in order to deter- 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 



251 



mine whether or not the Persian and Teutonic races of men were 
descended from a people who spoke Sanscrit ; for, that the Greeks 
and Romans were of a common origin with this people, no doubt can 
possibly exist. 



GREEK AND LATIN. 



In pursuing this enquiry, it will be most satisfactory to commence 
with the two last languages ; and, as comparative tables are much 
more easily understood than any detailed explanation in words, I have 
arranged in the following such coincidences as I have ascertained in 
the grammatical structure of Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin : — 



NOUNS. 







SINGULAR. 






PLURAL. 






r narasia * 


TJ/MJJ 


ensis 








•»•' 


gireh 




pennse rei 








1 guroh 


Aoys \eco 


domus 










^swaminah 


crcojxciTO; 


hominis 


swaminam -j- 


Xoyoov 


hominum 




"narayah 


Koyca 


domino 


narabhiah 


fructibus 


hominibus 


D. < 


giraye 


™M 


pennae 








guruwe 




dotnui 










swamine 


crcofMctTt 


homini 










'"naram 


T»/x.>jy Koyov 


dominum rem 








Ac. < 


taram 


fJ.8<TUV 


pennam 


tarah 


jU.B(T«J 


pennas 


gurum 


Sorpuv 


domum 








1 


^swaminam 


OQiV 


hominem 


swaminah 


TiTavaj 


homines 


j 


"nare 


T»/MJ 


re 


nareshu 


ju-scraff \oyois 


dominis 


Ab. -1 


girau 


Xoya) 


domino 








1 


^swamini 


0"O)jU,aTj 


homine 


swamishu 


TITCtVt 





* This is the most common termination of the genitive of masculine and neuter 
parisyllabic nouns, but in imparisyllabic nouns in Sanscrit the termination sia is rejected, 
and its place supplied by visarga or h. 

f The most frequent termination of the genitive plural in Sanscrit is anam, which is not 
found in Greek or Latin, unless it be supposed that in the latter anam has been changed 
into orum and arum. 

K K 2 



252 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 



The terminations of the cases will, however, be best seen in the 
declension of the following two adjectives : — 











SINGULAR. 




N. 


kalah 


kala 


kalam 


xaXog 


xaXrj 


xuXov 


G. 


kalasia 


kalaya 


kalasia 


xaXov 


xuXr\g 


xaXov 


D. 


kalaya 


kalayai 


kalaya 


xuXu> 


xuXy 


xuXw 


Ac. 


kalam 


kalam 


kalam 


xctXov 


xctXyv 


xuXov 


Ab. 


kale 


kalaya 


kale 


xuXca 


xuXy 


xuXm 










PLURAL. 




N. 


kalah 


kalah 


kalam 


xuXot 


xuXui 


xuXa 


G. 


kalanam 






xaXcuv 







D. kalebhiah 

Ac. kalan kalah kalan i 

Ab. kaleshu kalasu kaleshu 



xuXovg xaXug xaXa 
xaXoig xuXuig xaXoig 



bonus bona bonum 

boni bonae boni * 

bono bona? bono 

bonum bonam bonum 

bono bona bono 



boni bonae bona 

bonorum bonarum bonorum 



bonos 
bonis 



bonas bona 



N. and Ac. kalau 
G. kalioh 



DUAL. 

kale kale 



xuXco 

xaXoiv 



xuXu XuXca 



SINGULAR. 



N. dhanih dhanini dhani 

G. dhaninah dhaniniah dhaninah 

D. dhanine dhaniniai dhanine 

Ac. dhaninam dhananim dhani 

Ab. dhanini dhaniniam dhanini 



N. dhaninah dhaniniah dhanini 

G. dhaninam 

D. dhanibhiah 

Ac. dhaninah dhaninih dhanini 

Ab. dhanishu dhanishu dhanishu 



fteXug 


fj.eXuivu 


fj.eXuv 


inanis 


inane 


fj.sXavog 


fj.sXuivr)g 


fxeXavog 


inanis 




f.sXuvt 


fj-sXaivr] 


fj,eXavi 


inani 




fLsXuvu 


fj.eXaivuv 


fxsXav 


inanem 


inane 


lt.sKa.vi 


fj.sXa.ivri 


fj.sXa.vi 


inani 




PLURAL. 










fj.eXa.vsg 


fj.sXa.ivui 


fj.sXava 


inanes 


inania 


fj,sXuvwv 






inanum 
inanibus 




u.eXuvug 


fj.sXa.ivag 


u.eXuva 


inanes 


inania 



fxsXavi 



N. and Ac. dhaninau dhaniniau 
G. dhaninoh dhaninioh 



DUAL. 

dhanini 
dhaninoh 



fj.sXavs ft-sXaivu. fj.eXu.ve 
jxeXuvow fieXuivuiv fueXuvoiv 



In other Latin adjectives the genitive ends in is. 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 253 

In Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin, the adjectives are compared in the 
same manner, and the terminations for forming the comparative and 
superlative are nearly similar ; as, 

kalam kalataram kalatamam xevov xsvorspov xsvotxtov citus citiorem citimum 



The mode of comparison which is named in the Port Royal Greek 
Grammar irregular, is also derived from the Sanscrit ; as, 

laguh lagyan lagishta yXvxv; yXuxicov yXux»<rroj 

but in both languages the adjective may be also compared regularly. 

PRONOUNS. 

The personal pronouns, as it might be expected, have suffered such 
changes in passing from Sanscrit into other languages, that but few of 
their inflections have been preserved. The nominatives, however, of 
the first and second persons, aham and twain, may still be recognised 
in eyu, ego ; <rv, Dorice ru, tu : but the first persons plural have been 
preserved in English only, as, waiam, we ; yuyam, you. The dative 
singular, also, remains nearly the same, as, mahiam, po:, mihi ; tubiam, 
toi, tibi : and the accusative may be recognised in mam or ?na, pe, me ; 
and in twdm or twa, re, te ; but these inflections may, perhaps, have 
been formed from the Sanscrit contracted dative me : and the 
contracted accusatives plural noli and wdh may not unlikely be 
represented by nos and vos. 

But in the adjective pronouns the coincidences are singularly 
striking, as will be apparent from the following tables : — 











SINGULAR. 










N. 


yah 


yah 


yah 


os h 


6 


is 


ea 


id 


G. 


yasia 


yasia 


yasia 


Q'j fa 


01) 


ejus 






Ac. 


yam 


yam 


yat 


bv r;v 


b 


eum 


earn 


id 



254 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 



PLURAL. 

N. ye yah yarn ol a\ 

Ac. yan yah yani oug aj 

Ab. yeshu yasu yeshu 0I5 «!j 



oij 



11 ea ea 
eos eas ea 

eis 



sah tat 

tasia tasia 

D. tasmai tasyai tasmai 

Ac. tarn tarn tat 

taya tena 



N. sah 
G. tasia 



Ab. tena 



SINGULAR. 

6 t 

TOU T»]J 



TOV 
TOO 



Tt]V TO 
T>) TM 



Anglo-Saxon. 

to se seo thet 

too thes these thes 

tham these tham 

thon thane thet 



DUAL. 

N. and Ac. tau te te 
G. tayoh 



TOO TOC TW 
TOIV 



N. te tah tani 

G. tesham tasam tesham 

Ac. tan tah tani 

Ab. teshu tasu teshu 



PLURAL. 



too; rug 

TOlg TCilg 



rx 



T« 

roig 



tha 

thesa 

tha Dative, tham 



N. esha esha etat 

G. etasia etasia etasia 

D. etasmai etasyai etasmai 

Ac. etam etam etat 



SINGULAR. 

aoToj auTYj avTO 

ctvTOU avTTji; uvtov 

«utov «ot>)V auTO 



iste ista istud 

istius 

isti 

istum istam istud 



N. ete eta etani 

Ab. eteshu etasu eteshu 



PLURAL. 

aUTOJ UVTCM CtUTCt. 

xvtoi; uvTcti; avroi; 



isti istae ista 
istis 



N. kah 
G. kasia 
Ac. kam 
Ab. kena 



SINGULAR 

kah kim * 

kasia kasia 

kam kim 

kaya kena 



qui quae quod 

cujus 

quern quam quod 

quo qua quo 



* According to the analogy of the other pronouns, this ought to be kat or kad, and such, 
perhaps, was the original form. 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 255 

PLURAL. 

N. kah kah kani qui quae quae 

G. kesham kasam kesham quorum quarum quorum 

D. kebhiah kabhiah kebhiah quibus 

Ac. kan kah kani quos quas quae 



VERBS. 

In the verbs, also, the coincidences are equally striking, as will be 
apparent from the following tables : — 

PRESENT TENSE. 
1st Per. 2d Per. 3d Per. 1st Per. 2d Per. 3d Per. 

Sing. lagami lagasi lagati Plur. lagamah lagatha laganti 

Xsyw Xsyeig Asyei Xtyopev Xeyere Xeyovri Dor. 

Mid. Voice. Xeyopai Xeyy Xeyertxi 

lego legis legit legimus legitis legunt 

FIRST PRETERITE.* 
1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 

Sing. alagam alagah alagat Plur. alagama alagate alagan 

eXsyov eXiyeg sXeye eAeyojaev eXeyers eXeyov 

Pres. Subj. legam legas legat legamus legatis legant 

2. 3. 2. 3. 

Dual, alagatam alagatam sXeysrov sXsysrriv 

SECOND PRETERITE. 
1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 

Sing. lalaga lalagitha lalaga Plur. lalagima lalaga lalagul 

Mid. Voice. lalagishe lalagitive lalagire 

XeXe%oc XsXe%ct; AeAep^E AsAe^a/xev XsXs^sts XsXe^uai 

cucurri cucurristi cucurrit cucurrimus cucurristis cucurrere 

POTENTIAL. 
1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 

Sing. lageam lage laget Plur. lagema lagete lageyuh 

Aeyoijai Xsyoi$ Xsyoi Xeyoiptv Aeyocrs Xeyoisv 

Mid. Voice. Xeyoipyv Xsyoio Xsyono 

laudem laudes laudet laudemus laudetis laudent 



I adopt the terms used in Dr. Wilkins's Sanscrit Grammar. 



256 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

SECOND FUTURE. 
1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 

Si?tg. lagishiami lagishiasi lagishiati Plur. lagishiamah lagishiatha lagishiante 

Xe%w Ae?£»J Xe%ei Xe^o^ev Xs^ens XefcowTt 

Mid. Voice. Xe^o[/.ai Xs%r) Ae£eT«i 

CONDITIONAL. 
1. 2. 3. 1. . 2. 3. 

Sing, alagishiam alagisheah alagisheat Plur. alagishiama alagishiate alagishian 
Xegatfu Xe%ctis Xz%ou Xe£aiy.ev Xe%oi.its Xegctisv 

lexissem lexisses lexisset lexissemus lexissetis lexissent 

2. 3. 2. 3. 

Dual, alagishiatam alagishisheatam Xs^onrov AejjfacDjv 

IMPERATIVE. 
2. 3. 2. S. 

Sing, laga lagatu Plur. lagata lagantu 

Xsys Xeyerm Xsysrs XeyovTcuv Att. 

lege legito legite legunto 

The Sanscrit infinitive is preserved in the first Latin supine ; as, 
palitum, alitum ; sanitum, cinctum. 

The present participle in the masculine gender is nearly similar ; as, 

N. G. D. Ac. Ab. N. & Ac. G. D. Ab. 

Sing, lagan lagatah lagate lagantam lagati Plur. lagantah lagatam lagadbhiah lagatsu 

Xsycuv XsyovTog Xeyovrt Xsyovra XeyovT£{ Xeyovrcuv Xsyovtrt 

legens legentis legenti legentem legenti legentes legentium legentibus 

The feminine is formed regularly in Sanscrit, as laganti, and 
declined like other feminine nouns ; but in Greek it is formed 
irregularly, as Xeyova-a, and in Latin it is the same as the masculine. 

The neuter thus forms the nominative and accusative, singular and 
plural : — 

agat laganti Xsyov Xsyovra. legens legentia 

The present participle of the middle voice is also the same in 
Sanscrit and Greek j as, 

lagamanah lagamanah lagamanam Xeyopevo; Xeyopevri Xsyotj.evov 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 257 

and the Sanscrit past participle has been preserved in Latin ; as, 



lagatah lagatah lagatam 
saktah saktah sactam 



legatus legata legatum 
lectus lecta lectum 



It thus appears that of the ten Sanscrit tenses, viz. the present, the 
three prseterites, the two futures, the potential, the conditional, the 
imperative, and the infinitive, the inflections of six have been pre- 
served both in Greek and Latin, and of one in Greek and Latin 
respectively ; so that there remain two tenses only, the inflections 
of which have been lost. 

The middle and passive voices of Sanscrit verbs, however, being 
formed merely by slight changes in the increments used in the active 
voice, do not afford any coincidences which would admit of identifying 
their tenses with those of Greek and Latin verbs.* 



PARTICLES. 



Home Tooke has observed that, " though abbreviation and cor- 
ruption are always busiest with the words which are most frequently in 



* The coincidences in the substantive verb have been given by other writers, but it may 
be proper to add them here : — 

PRESENT. 

i. 
Plur. smah 



1. 


2. 


3. 


S. Sing, asmi 


asi 


asti 


G. SljU-l 


e<? 


£<TTI 


L. esum 


es 


est 



2. 

stha 



eo"jU,ev sots 
sumus estis 



s. 
santi 
svti Dor. 
sunt 



IMPERATIVE. 

2. 3. 2. 3. 

S. Si?ig. edhi astu Plur. sta santu 

G. ICT0I StXTOO SOTS StTTCtiV Att. 



L. sunto 



POTENTIAL. 
1. 2. 3. I. 2. 3. 

S. Sing, siam sia siat Plur. siama siata suili 
L. sim sis sit simus sitis sint 

L L 



258 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

use ; yet the words most frequently used are least liable to be totally laid 
aside, and, therefore, they are often retained ( I mean that branch of 
them which is most frequently used), when most of the other words 
(and even the other branches of these retained words) are by various 
changes and accidents lost to a language. Hence the difficulty of 
accounting for them, and hence (because only one branch of each of 
these declinable words is retained in a language) arises the notion of 
their being indeclinable and a separate sort of words, or part of speech 
by themselves."* But, if it be admitted that this opinion is correct, 
the identity of so many of the Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin particles, 
and the illustration which some in the two last languages receives 
from Sanscrit, must tend still farther to demonstrate that the re- 
markable affinity which prevails between these languages could not 
have existed, had not Greek and Latin been actually derived from 
Sanscrit. For instance, it has been found impossible to account for a 
having in Greek both an intensive and a privative signification ; but 
it is at once explained by observing that, in the first sense, it is equi- 
valent to the Sanscrit preposition a (the same as the Latin ad), which 
implies addition, excess, or superiority ; and in the last sense it cor- 
responds with the Sanscrit privative particle. The same confusion 
has taken place in the meaning given to the particle w 4 , as it is also 
both privative and intensive, because the distinction between the 
Sanscrit ni implying excess, and nir denoting deprivation, has not 
been preserved. Again, £cu (equivalent to the Latin vce) is explained 
by lexicographers as particula augendi, and very correctly, as it is 
clearly the Sanscrit adjective bahu f , much, many. 

Dr. Jamieson, indeed, observes that " many learned writers, in 
former ages, have deduced Gothic words from the Greek, or from the 
Latin language. This mode of derivation, however, has not only 
excited a smile at their expense, but has in part contributed to subject 
the science of etymology in general to ridicule. It has, with good 

* Epea Pteroenta, vol. i. p. 127. 

f In speaking, the aspirate is but slightly pronounced, and the two syllables might easily 
coalesce ; as, to my ear, they often do in the actual pronunciation by the natives of the word 
bahuwachan, plural. 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 259 

reason, been deemed inconceivable, that the Gothic tribes should 
borrow from the Greeks, with whom, during the historical age at least, 
they had scarce any intercourse, nor were they better acquainted with 

the Latins, when they inundated and subdued the Roman empire 

This mode of derivation being justly scouted, an enquiry naturally 
occurs to the mind : As a remarkable affinity has been observed between 
the Gothic and Greek and Latin languages, may not the former idea 
be inverted; is there not a possibility that the languages of Greece may 
have originated from the ancient Scythian?" * But by the Scythians 
Dr. Jamieson intends the ancestors of the Gothic people, and I have, 
perhaps, not only shown that these were Thracians, and not Scythians, 
but, also, that the Thracian language was originally the same as the 
Greek and Latin. I have further evinced that there is every reason 
to suppose that this language was actually the primitive tongue of 
Asia Minor, and itself derived from that of Babylonia, or Sanscrit. 
The particles, therefore, in Greek, Latin, and Gothic would naturally, 
in many instances, retain their identity ; and, if such as are cognate 
in these languages are, also, found in Sanscrit, their derivation from the 
latter will scarcely be disputed, f 

There is, however, one difficulty in this identification, which arises 
from the various and even opposite meanings which particles, and 
particularly prepositions, have acquired from long use ; and hence, 
precise identity of signification cannot be resorted to in order to prove 
the identity of the particles compared : but, notwithstanding, almost 
all the particles selected by Dr. Jamieson are found in Sanscrit ; as 
for instance : — 

* Hermes Scythicus, Intr. p. 1. 

f Home Tooke remarks, — " For these troublesome conjunctions, which have hitherto 
caused them [etymologists] so much mistake and unsatisfactory labour, shall save them 
many an error and many a weary step in future. They shall no more expose themselves 
by unnatural forced conceits to derive the English and all other languages from the Greek, 
or the Hebrew, or some primeval imaginary tongue. The particles of every language .shall 
teach them whither to direct, and where to stop their enquiries ; for, wherever the evident 
meaning and origin of the particles of any lanoruafe can be found, there is the certain source 
of the whole." — Epea Ptcroenta, vol. i. p. J 46. 

L L c 2 



260 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

3f«J [anu) ; G. avu ; M. G. ana. 

f^TT (wina) ; G. uvm ; L. sine j M. G. inuh. 

3ffr|qfi {antika), near, proximate ; G. avn j L. ante ; M. G. anda. 

3fCJ" 3f^" (apa, awa) ; G. ocrto ; L. ab ; M. G. abu. 

3ffif (abhi), junction, tendency ; G. tm j M. G. bi, 

f^SJ" (mitha), together, junction, mutually ; G. [/.era ; M. G. mith. 

mj (p&ra), far ; G. naga, ; M. G. faura. 

TTTT (j°<^»&)> the opposite; G. jft$M\ M. G. fairra. 

rjff^ (pari) ; G. ve^i.* 

Z% [pro) ; G. 7r^o' y L. pro ; M. G. faur. 

$PT (sa?n) ; G. <rw ; L. cum ; M. G. sam. 

3T^"f^ (updri) ; G. uVeg> ; L. super ; M. G. ufar. 

3^T (upa) -, G. 07ro ; L. sub ; M. G. uf. 

3Jrf (yat) ; G. on ; L. uti ; M. G. at. 

3JrT (yata) ; G. ef; j A. S. get. 

3f5Tj {ama) ; G. a^ua ; A. S. em. 

<H<^| (yctda) ; G. ore ; A. S. tha. 

ff^J (tada) ; G. tote ; M. G. thade. 

3JPT {ayu), age ; G. ae< ; M. G. aiw. 

3Xf (uri), expansion f; G. ugi, egi ; Alem. er. 

fl^fj (dxvisha), by twos, separately ; G. fe ; L. dis ; M. G. dis. 

I add a few other particles, not adverted to in Dr. Jamreson's work, 
belonging to either Greek, Latin, or Gothic, which are derived from 
Sanscrit : — 

3f?J (adya) ; L. hodie ; M. G. hita. 

vi| |£|«i (asann) ; G. a<ro~ov. 

Xfrf (^) j G-. e;t« ; L. ita. 

* Dr. Jamieson is at a loss to fix on a Gothic preposition corresponding with nepi. 
\ Wilson gives no etymon for this particle, but in this sense it seems formed from the 
adjective uru, great, large. 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 261 

3ffrT (ati) ; G. «<5V. 

fT (tu) ; G. toi. 

21^ ( dus) ; G. fo& 

TT^rT (parut), the last year ; G. we^va-i. 

TJ~^ [purds) ; G. ir^oq. 

CTfcT (prdti) ; G. 7T£or/. 

yrj (ma) ; G. px. 

CT (sm) ; G. eu. 

g; (&wa) ; L. qua 

^rf (ut) ; L. ut, conj. 

qH (wdt) ; L. ut, adv. 

TTSrjrT (paschat) ; L. post 

3f^" (a^ra) ; A. S. hither. 

cT^ (tdtra) ; A. S. thither. 

3T^" (ydtra) ; A. S. whither. 

3TfrT («^) 5 beyond ; A. S. ut. 

3pJ^ (an), the privative before a vowel ; Goth. un. 

'^H (sanhhu) ; M. G. sansaiw. 

3fy*Tf (adhuna) ; M. G. guthan. 

fcfiSTcT (kimuta) ; A. S. humeta. 

^irlri (santatam) ; M. G. sintaino. 

3"^f (udaya), sunrising ; M. G. uhtwo, mane. 

3fS[^7 (athwa) ; A. S. oththe. 

M l^rl \r\ (purastat) ; Eng„ first. 

The reader will now be enabled to judge whether it is not more 
probable that the Greek, Latin, and Gothic particles have been prin- 
cipally derived from Sanscrit, than that they have been formed in the 
manner stated by Dr. Jamieson and other writers. But, if this be 
admitted, Home Tooke must be mistaken in the account of the origin 



262 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

of particles, which he has given in these words : — " Language, it is 
true, is an art, and a glorious one; whose influence extends over all 
the others, and in which finally all science whatever must centre. 
But an art springing from necessity, and originally invented by artless 
men ; who did not sit down like philosophers to invent des petits mots 
pour etre mis avant les noms ; nor yet did they take for this purpose des 
premiers sons brefs et vogues qui leur venoit a la bouche • but they took 
such and the same (whether great or small, whether monosyllable 
or polysyllable, without distinction) as they employed upon other 
occasions to mention the same real objects. For prepositions also are 
the names of real objects, and these petits mots happen in this case to 
be so, merely from their repeated corruption, owing to their frequent, 
long continued, and perpetual use." * Because all the labour and 
ingenuity of Sanscrit grammarians have not enabled them to class 
such words under any roots ; or, at least, whenever they have done 
so, the derivations are as far fetched and unlikely as most of those 
which have been adduced by Home Tooke. For, as he admits that 
language was invented by artless men, such an etymology as this must 
appear utterly improbable: — " I imagine, also, that of (in the Gothic 
and Anglo-Saxon of) is a fragment of the Gothic and Anglo-Saxon 
afora, posteritas, &c. ; afora, proles, &c. That it is a noun substantive, 
and means always consequence, offspring, successor, follower" &c. f 
But would it not be much more reasonable to conclude that, if 
particles were originally significant in themselves, they have become 
so disguised and corrupted by long use, that it is now perfectly 
impossible to discover their real nature ; and, in this instance par- 
ticularly, to suppose that the Gothic af and English of have been 
derived from the Sanscrit apa or ava f 

* Epea Ptercenta, vol. i. p. 317. 

f Ibid., vol. i. p. 367. 

Might not one be allowed with great justness to thus parody Home Tooke's own "words, 
in a note in the 1 1 5th page of that volume ? — " Now if this, and such stuff as this, be 
etymology, and that too of the greatest etymologist that ever existed, I do most humbly 
entreat, if you still continue obstinate to discard common sense, that I may have the 
etymologies of Dean Swift again." 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. ^63 



TEUTONIC DIALECTS. 



From the preceding observations the remarkable similarity of the 
grammatical system in Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin will have been 
rendered fully apparent ; but, amongst the Thracians, this system was 
found too artificial for a people who did not cultivate the arts of 
civilised life. In the Teutonic dialects, consequently, the grammatical 
structure assumes a simplicity that might render their affinity with 
those languages liable to doubt, did not undeniable traces exist in all 
these dialects which attest that they, also, must have been at one time 
distinguished by more numerous grammatical forms ; for the sub- 
stantives and adjectives still retain three genders, and their cases are 
formed by inflections and not by prepositions. In these cases, also, 
a few of the Sanscrit terminations have been preserved, the identity 
of which cannot be doubted, as they equally appear in Greek and 
Latin nouns. In Anglo-Saxon, for instance, the genitive singular ends 
generally in s, the dative in e, and in one -declension the accusative 
plural of masculine nouns ends in as, equivalent to the Sanscrit ah, and 
of feminine nouns in a, as in Sanscrit. The genitive plural, also, 
seems to be formed by merely rejecting the last syllable of the 
Sanscrit ; as, S. nardnam, A; S. smitha. In one declension, indeed, the 
final letter only is rejected ; as, S. girinam, A. S. witigena. 

But in the Teutonic verbs the ten Sanscrit tenses and their in- 
flections have nearly disappeared, and of the distinct formation of a 
middle and passive voice no traces remain. The number, however, 
of Sanscrit verbs still discoverable in these dialects, and the almost 
certainty that their parent language was the same as the Greek and 
Latin, must place it beyond a doubt that the Gothic verb must also 
have been originally conjugated by means of inflections, and not of 
auxiliary verbs ; but the use of the latter for this purpose seems so 
consonant to the habits of a rude people, that even the Latin has 
been obliged to have recourse to it. It cannot, therefore, seem im- 



264 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

probable that the Thracians, unacquainted with letters and the arts of 
civilised life, may have soon found these complicated modifications of 
the verb inconvenient and unnecessary, and that they in consequence 
rejected them, and supplied their places with other distinct words. 
In its present state the Gothic verb, assuming the second person 
singular of the imperative as the root, admits of only three inflections, 
the present, preterite, and infinitive ; to which may be added the 
present participle. The terminations, also, of the persons of these two 
tenses are precisely the same, and vary merely in the singular, as there 
is but one termination for the three persons of the plural. There, 
consequently, remains scarcely any thing for comparison with the 
Sanscrit verb. But in Mceso-Gothic the terminations have been better 
preserved, and their identity with Sanscrit is evident ; as for instance, 

1st Per. 2d Per. 3d Per. 

Plur. shokamah shokatha shokanti 

sokam sokith sokand 

In Mceso-Gothic, also, Hickes has given a future, formed by in- 
flection, which nearly agrees with the Sanscrit potential : — 

1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 

Sing. shokeyam shokeh* shoket Plur. shokema shoketa shokeyu 

Mid. Voice, shokeya 

M. G. sokau sokais sokai sokaima sokait sokaina 

The Sanscrit substantive verb, at the same time, has been best pre- 
served in Mceso-Gothic, though its present tense is compounded of 
the persons of two of the Sanscrit tenses ; as, 

]. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 

S. Pres. tense. Sing, asmi asi asti Plur. santi 

Potential. syama syata 

M. G. im is ist siyum siyuth sind 



* This final h, or visarga, as I have before observed, is frequently changed into s. 





1st Per. 


2d Per. 


3d Per. 


Smg. 


shokami 


shokasi 


shokati 


Mid. Voice. 


shoke 






M. G. 


soka 


sokais 


sokai th 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. 



265 



I have already noticed, in p. 152., the Sanscrit verbs which contribute 
to the formation of the Anglo-Saxon substantive verb ; but the 
coincidences will be rendered still more apparent by comparing 
other tenses of the Moeso-Gothic substantive verb with the cor- 
responding ones in Sanscrit : — 



1. 


2. 


3. 


i. 


2. 


3. 


S. Potential. Sing, syam 


syah 


syat 


Plur. syama 


syata 


syuh 


M. G. Ditto. siyau 


siyais 


siyai 


siyaima 


siyaith 


siyaina 



1. 2. 3. 

S. Potential. Sing, waseya waseh waset 
M. G. Ditto. wasau wasais wasei 



1. 2. 3. 

Plur. wasema waseta waseyuh 
waseima wasaith waseina 



1. 2. 3. 

S. Pres. tense. Sing, wartami wartasi wartati 

Mid. Voice. warte 

M. G. wairtha wairthais wairthet 



i. 
Plur. wartama 



2. 

wartatha 



wartanti 



wairtham wairthaith wairthand 



The prasterite tense of the Gothic verb is clearly the past participle 
of the Sanscrit, to which personal terminations have been added ; as, 
S. shokita, M. G. sokida. 

The present active participle of Mceso-Gothic in the accusative case 
is identical with the Sanscrit ; as, M. G. habendan, S. bhawantam.* 

These coincidences in the general structure of the Gothic and 
Sanscrit languages will, perhaps, be sufficient to evince that the 
dissimilarity which at present exists in their grammatical systems 
affords no just grounds for doubting that the former was derived from 
the latter. On the contrary, when it is considered that the Gothic 



* It appears to me highly probable that the verb habeo in Latin, which has a corresponding 
term in all the Teutonic dialects, is derived from this Sanscrit verb, as will perhaps be 
apparent from contrasting the following tenses : — 



1. 2. 3. 

S. Potential. Sing, bhaveya bhaveh bhavet 

Present tense. 

L. Present tense, habeo habes habet 

M. G. haba habais habaith 



1. 2. 3. 

Plur. bhavema bhaveta bhaveyuh 

bhavanti 
habemus habetis habent 
habam habeith haband 



The Latin perfect habui may be derived from Sanscrit bebhwwa, and the Latin supine 
habitum seems clearly to be the Sanscrit infinitive bhavitum. 

M M 



266 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

was in constant use, for, probably, fifteen hundred years, as the ver- 
nacular tongue of the rude and widely dispersed tribes that inhabited 
Thracia and Germany, before it was employed as a written language, 
it must excite the greatest surprise that it should exhibit even at this 
day such undeniable indications of its having originally possessed a 
much more artificial grammatical structure. When, also, these in- 
dications are confirmed by the remarkable circumstance of the Teutonic 
dialects containing, after a lapse of three thousand years, at least 413 
Sanscrit words, it will scarcely be denied that the cognate origin of 
Greek, Latin, and these dialects from the Sanscrit language has been 
as satisfactorily demonstrated as the nature of the subject admits of. 



PERSIAN. 



But in Persian there is not the slightest appearance that its gram- 
matical system was ever different from that which has prevailed during 
the last thousand years ; and I have, perhaps, fully shown in the Tenth 
Chapter that, previous to the first Persian author now extant, no 
external influence had ever effected any essential alteration in the lan- 
guage which had been used in Persia from time immemorial. Its 
peculiar structure, therefore, deserves the attentive consideration of the 
philologist, because it differs entirely from that of all other languages. 
The characteristics by which it is principally distinguished consist 
in the nouns having no genders; in the substantives having only one 
case ; in the adjectives being indeclinable ; in the verbs being all con- 
jugated according to one paradigm, and in four of their tenses being 
formed by particles ; and, particularly, in the words of a most copious 
language being nearly all primitive, as it scarcely admits of the primitive 
being modified by means of increments, or of its being compounded 
with particles. In many respects, consequently, it approaches to 
English in the simplicity of its structure, but it far surpasses the latter 
in regularity and originality. 



GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE. ^61 

There exists not, therefore, the remotest similarity between the 
Persian and Sanscrit grammatical systems ; for the Persian noun has 
but one case, and the verb, taking the second person singular of 
the imperative as the root, only three inflections including the 
infinitive, and the personal terminations of the two tenses are pre- 
cisely the same. Nor is there even any farther resemblance between 
the Sanscrit and Persian substantive verbs, than in the third person 
singular of the present tense. The Persian also differs from the 
Sanscrit by forming several tenses and a complete passive voice by 
means of auxiliary verbs. There is, in fact, not the least identity 
between these two languages, except in the words which have passed 
from the one into the other ; but these fully prove that, though the 
Persian is not derived from Sanscrit, still the Persians must have had, 
at some remote period, a most intimate intercourse with a people who 
spoke that tongue. Unfortunately, however, as a negative cannot 
be proved, it is impossible to demonstrate this truth to a person 
unacquainted with these languages ; or to fully satisfy him that the 
number of Sanscrit words found in Persian ought not to lead to 
a conclusion, as in the case of Greek and Latin, that the latter was 
derived from the former : but, as the dissimilarity of their grammatical 
structure will not be denied by any person competently acquainted 
with them, it is merely requisite to consider whether any instance 
has ever existed of a derived language differing totally, in grammatical 
structure, from the parent tongue ; for, if not, it must necessarily 
follow that, notwithstanding the numerous Sanscrit words it contains, 
Persian was not derived from Sanscrit.* 

* Amongst the other innumerable errors which occur in Dr. A. Murray's History of the 
European languages is the following strange opinion : — " The Persic, in the violence of 
ages, like the Anglo-Saxon, has lost nearly all its inflections; though it be a perspicuous, 
it is evidently a barren dialect. It has run the race which experience shows to be due to 
articulate speech in its natural progress. Time destroys the more delicate and complex 
parts of the structure, by the hand of ignorance and chance ; leaving the ruins, for the 
materials of a smaller and less splendid edifice, to future ingenuity." — Vol. ii. p. J-40. How 
any person, aware that Greek had remained, from before the time of Homer to the capture of 
Constantinople, during a course of 2500 years, and during all the changes which the 
Grecian people had suffered in that long interval, in every respect the same identical 

M M 2 



268 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 



From the preceding observations it will be evident that, on account 
of differences in the alphabetical systems and grammatical structure 
of the languages into which Sanscrit words have passed, these words 
must necessarily have suffered changes both in their component letters 
and in their final and penultimate syllables ; and, consequently, such 
obviously unavoidable alterations would not justly render questionable 
the identity of the words compared together in the following Table. 
But it is most singular that such legitimate changes are scarcely 
requisite for effecting this comparison ; and that by an occasional 
permutation of vowels and two or three consonants, and the mere 
rejection of a grammatical inflection, 900 Sanscrit words can be in- 
controvertibly identified with the same number in five distinct lan- 
guages. It will, also, be observed that in very few instances only has 
either prosthesis, epenthesis, or metathesis occurred., The prefixing, 
however, of an s to words seems common to several languages, and 
that in Latin words an n has been occasionally inserted can scarcely 
be doubted : for it will not, perhaps, be denied that the Sanscrit 
sapta is identical with k-rrroc, and S. plina with G. o-ttXviv, L. lien ; 
and that S. shata?n, G. exutov, L. centum; S. rasa, G. ef<rij, L. ros ; 
and S. asim, L. ensem, are the same words ; as in these and similar 



language, could write such remarks as these seems inexplicable. But, if by Anglo-Saxon 
English be intended, the causes which have occasioned it to lose nearly all its inflections 
are well known ; and, consequently, before it is produced as an example in support of any 
philological argument, it ought to be first proved that the country, the language of which 
may be under discussion, had undergone precisely the same revolutions as England. In 
Persia, on the contrary, not the slightest indication exists, either in tradition or history, 
which shows that, previous to the Arabian conquest, any foreign influence ever operated 
the slightest change in the Persian language ; and every Persian scholar must admit that 
the effects of that event have not in the least degree altered its original structure. The 
writer, however, who can consider Persian as a barren dialect, must be so totally ignorant 
of that language as to render his opinion respecting its origin and nature undeserving of 
attention. 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. ggp, 

cases the meaning is precisely the same. The identity of iog and 
the Sanscrit ishu might appear more questionable, were it not for the 
identity of their signification ; but zoq and the Sanscrit usha will no 
doubt be readily admitted to be identical. Such changes, however, 
occur very seldom, and I have, perhaps, adhered too strictly to my 
own principles, in excluding words the derivation of which from 
Sanscrit would not in all probability have been controverted.* 

But, in case the words contained in the following Table should be 
examined critically, it must be further remarked that in some instances 
it is by the primitive, and not by the usual, signification of the Greek, 
Latin, or Gothic terms that their identity with Sanscrit ones must be 
determined. For instance, the Sanscrit loka does not correspond with 
the usual acceptation of the Latin locus, but precisely with this 
definition of the word given by Varro ; — " Loca, secundum anti- 
quam divisionem, prima duo, terra et caelum ; deinde particulatim 
utriusque multa. Cceli dicuntur loca supera, et ea deorum : terra loca 
infera, et ea hominum." Fundus, also, is thus defined by Gesner ; — 
" Proprie est ima pars uniuscujusque rei, qu.se aliquid in se liquoris 
contineat, vel ad continendum facta sit ; " and, consequently, it may be 
correctly identified with the Sanscrit phanda, the belly. Again, 
Gesner thus defines fanum ; — " Fanum itaque secundum hagc diflfert 
a Templo, quod sit area templi et solum, Templum vero gedificium," 

* It will, also, be observed that I have rejected many words which appear in comparative 
lists already published. But of the 429 given by Adelung seventy-eight are not Sanscrit, a 
good many have no such meaning as he ascribes to them, and the identity of numerous 
others cannot be admitted. For it is impossible to discover any correspondence in such 
words as these : — S. aascha, desiderium ; Ger. heischen, poscere •• S. ari, hostis ,■ G. egivvuj : 
S. arun, diluculum ; Heb. or, lux .- S. deva, deus ,■ G. Satju-wv ; Ger. teuf-el, diabolus : 
S. gula, globus ; Heb. chul, circumvolvendo ligat .- S. krida (kirita), diadema ; Ger. kreis, 
ciradus : S. mala, mons ; Lat. mala : S. oschna (ushna), calor ; Lat. sestus : S. ko-bilen 
(go-pala), vaccarum custos ; Lat. Pales ; G. A-ttoWmv : S. pascha, animal ; G. 8ov; ; Lat. bos i 
S. surgo (swarga), caelum ; Lat. surgere. The identifications given by M. Klaproth are often 
equally objectionable ; as, S. ania, alius ; Ger. ander : S. vinasha, exitium, Lat. finis : 
S. dutia, nuncium -, Eng. duty : S. sima, meta ,■ Pers. semin, terra : S. veda, lex sacra ; 
Lat. veto: S. lakhu (laghu), levis ; Lat. levis ; Ger. leicht : S. sajaka ; Lat. sagitta : 
S. lalana, oblectatio ; Lat. blandus : S. atma ; Lat. anima : S. vanigia, mcrcatura ; Lat. 
vendere, &c. Several, also, of the words given by M. Klaproth are not Sanscrit. 



270 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 



When, therefore, the construction of temples in sacred groves is ad- 
verted to, what can seem more probable than that fanum is the same 
word as the Sanscrit isoanam^ a grove. * But it is dangerous to indulge 
in such etymologies as these, for they too often merely mislead ; and 
the etymologist, pleased with such seemingly ingenious identifications, 
is too apt to push them to the absurdest extreme. 

It is, however, in tracing the origin of such words as the last, that 
etymology might be applied to the most philosophical of purposes. 
For, in the progress of civilisation and knowledge, all people have 
found it more convenient to employ words already in use for the 
expression of new ideas, than to invent new terms as they became 
requisite. Hence, by ascertaining the primitive word and its original 
signification, and then tracing it through all its modifications and 
varieties of meaning, the process by which a people has proceeded 
from the observation of sensible objects unto discrimination of the 
most subtle operations of the mind, or the precise point at which this 
process has stopped, may be investigated with the utmost certainty. 
In the same manner the progress which a nation has made in the 
useful and ornamental arts, and whether these have been invented in 
the country or received from strangers, are equally demonstrated by 
its language. But, hitherto, it has been in the investigation of sounds 
and not of ideas that etymology has been employed, and the futility 
of such researches has scarcely received more ridicule than it justly 
merits. 

In later years, also, a subject of investigation has been dignified with 
the appellation of the philosophy and even the inductive philosophy of 
language, which seems to me to be still more futile : for there are no 
data whatever from which the original formation of any one language 
can be ascertained; and, consequently, all opinions on the subject 
must rest entirely on conjectures, without there being any criterion by 
which their correctness could be determined. Such speculations, 
therefore, are a mere waste of time, because their results cannot 

* At least this etymology must appear much more probable than this one given by 
Varro, — " Hinc fana nominata, quod pontifices in sacrando fati sint finem." 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 271 

promote the increase or perfection of knowledge. Dr. A. Murray, 
however, observes with respect to the indeclinable parts of speech : — 
" The origin of this division of language was first explained by the 
able and philosophical enquiries of Home Tooke. We are indebted 
to these for the recent discovery, that there are no words in language 
destitute of meaning, or without any signification save that which 
they derive from others. He was the first writer who applied the 
inductive philosophy to the history of speech, and the success equalled 
the expectations which might have been formed from his distinguished 
abilities."* But the slightest acquaintance with languages must in- 
controvertibly evince that, in their present state, all words are not 
derived from the noun and the verb ; and, if a language ever existed 
composed only of nouns and verbs, it must have been so rude and 
unformed as to be perfectly undeserving of consideration. On what 
grounds, also, is it assumed that it would be more easy for a people to 
corrupt the noun and verb into the other parts of speech than to invent 
them ; or that the increments used for the inflection, or modification, 
of the primitive word must necessarily have been significant in them- 
selves ? For, until these two points be satisfactorily proved, the 
whole of Home Tooke's system rests on no foundation whatever ; and, 
consequently, before he applied his principles to the Gothic dialects, 
he ought to have established, by numerous instances adduced from 
various languages, that these principles were themselves correct and 
capable of universal application. 

It must, at the same time, be admitted that Home Tooke has sup- 
ported his opinion with much ingenuity, and a very skilful selection 
of examples : but, as his colloquist very justly observes, — " Thus it 
is always with etymologists, when they chuse their own instances, 
their explanations run upon all fours ; but they limp most miserably, 
when others quote the passages for them." f Every reader, indeed, of 
the Diversions of Purley must observe that Home Tooke was ignorant 
of the languages of the East, and that he has even carefully refrained 

* Hist, of European Languages, vol. ii. p. 1. 
f Epea Pteroenta, vol. ii. p. 49. 



272 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

from availing himself for the illustration of his remarks of so copious 
and perfect a tongue as the Greek. These circumstances alone are 
sufficient to excite doubts respecting the correctness of his hypothesis ; 
and I may affirm, without the fear of contradiction, that he would have 
found it impossible to apply his principles, in the slightest degree, 
either to the Greek *, Arabic, Persian, or Sanscrit languages ; for in 
none of these would he have been able to trace every word to a noun 
or verb. This opinion is, at the same time, disproved by the internal 
evidence of all languages, in which many words exist in the state of 
adjectives without the idea expressed by them having been denoted by 
a noun or verb, or there having been any necessity for so denoting it ; 
as for instance, good, bad, long, short, sick, well, round, strait, quick, 
slow, &c. j" It seems equally evident that the pronoun expresses an 
idea which could never have been conveyed by a noun or a verb, and 
it is, therefore, impossible to understand how it could ever have been 
corrupted from either. On the contrary, it may be more reasonably 
supposed that the inconvenience of continually repeating the proper 
name of the speaker and the person addressed, or a third person, would 
have very soon occasioned the invention of a substitute for so tedious 
a mode of conversation.^: If, also, the signs of the cases of nouns, and 
the terminations of the persons of verbs, had originally been words 
significant in themselves, and each of them had expressed but one 
determinate idea, what could possibly occasion the variety of in- 
flections which now prevail in the Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit nouns and 
verbs ? It might, however, seem reasonable to suppose that, unless 
increments and particles had been originally significant in themselves, 
they could not have answered the purpose for which they were in- 
vented. But, unless a meaning can be discovered in English in the y 

* Much of Home Tooke's reasoning is founded on the use made of the past participles 
in forming such words as right, just, wrong, &c. ; and yet the Greek has no such past participle. 

f In the Maratha dialect, though abstract nouns maybe formed from such adjectives, 
they are scarcely ever used. 

J Home Tooke has very skilfully confined himself to a few observations on the 
demonstrative pronouns it and that ; but has not ventured to give any explanation of the 
origin of the personal pronouns, 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 273 

by which nouns are rendered adjectives, as greedy ; or in Persian in 
the izafat, i. e. in the i annexed to a noun in construction with 
another ; or to the y in Sanscrit by which also nouns are rendered 
adjectives, as nasha, destruction, nashya, destructive ; it might be more 
justly concluded that such increments were merely intended to indicate 
that the word to which they were added was, except in the case of 
a derivative noun, dependent on another word for its complete 
signification.* 

As, however, I consider all conjectures on the formation of lan- 
guages to be a mere waste of time, I have no intention of entering 
into a discussion respecting the prefixes, affixes, and particles, by which 
primitives in Sanscrit are modified and compounded. Nor is it 
necessary, because all comparison of languages must depend on their 
actual and not on their original state. Every people, also, have 
adopted different means for this purpose ; and in no respect was 
Home Tooke more egregiously mistaken, than in supposing that 
principles which might be applicable to the structure of the Gothic 
dialects, would be also applicable to that of all other languages. For 
it is precisely in the inflections, increments, and particles that changes 
would first begin to take place in the parent tongue of a people who 
had been originally the same, but who had separated and become 
distinct nations. These changes are very perceptible in th§ Gothic 
dialects ; and, had not Home Tooke been misled by a favourite hypo- 
thesis, he must have observed in them strong indications that their 
complete originality was very questionable, and that their gram- 
matical structure no longer existed in its primitive state. These 

* The anomalies, also, of most languages must prevent the possibility of reducing them to 
their simplest elements on any certain principles. For nothing seems more probable than 
that the cases of nouns were intended to denote those ideas of relation which are expressed 
in the Gothic dialects by prepositions ; and such is actually their use in Sanscrit, in which 
with, by, to, for, at, from, of, in, on, are signified by the cases of nouns without the assist- 
ance of prepositions : but, why are the prepositions placed in construction, always in 
Greek and sometimes in Latin, with the cases of nouns, if these were really significant in 
themselves ? 

N N 



274 GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 

dialects, therefore, being derived from another tongue, and their 
original structure having been materially affected by the lapse of time, 
and by all the corruptions to which vernacular speech is invariably 
subject, were totally unadapted for furnishing any principles which 
could be universally applicable, and thus lead to just conclusions re- 
specting the original formation of language. 

Sanscrit, in particular, is much too ancient and too refined a lan- 
o-uao-e, to admit of its original formation being ever ascertained by the 
analysis of the letters and syllables of which its words and particles are 
composed. Nor, were it possible, can I understand that any benefit 
could possibly result from it ; because, for all grammatical purposes, 
Sanscrit has been sufficiently analysed and reduced to the clearest 
principles, and the primitive and derivative meanings of its words 
may be traced with the greatest certainty. Whether, therefore, its 
inflections, increments, and particles were ever words significant in 
themselves, or the manner in which they were first invented and 
afterwards corrupted, are assuredly questions which deserve not con- 
sideration ; as their most complete solution would not contribute in 
the slightest degree either to the more easy acquisition, or to the more 
perfect comprehension, of so copious and polished a language. It is 
the actual elegance and symmetry of an edifice which command 
admiration, and not the rude materials from which it was constructed ; 
and the explorer of the elements from which languages have acquired 
their present refinement resembles much the man who, instead of 
gazing with awe and wonder on the church of St. Peter, should amuse 
himself by endeavouring to ascertain the nature of the cement 
and fastenings used in its erection. Such an analysis is equally un- 
necessary for the purpose of comparing one language with another ; 
for, if the same inflections and particles exist in any two languages, 
this circumstance alone fully proves their affinity, and, consequently, 
any further enquiry into the origin of these inflections and particles 
becomes altogether useless. The preceding observations, therefore, 
will, perhaps, be sufficient to evince that, although considerable dif- 



GRAMMATICAL AND ETYMOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATIONS. 275 

ference now exists in the structure of the Greek, Latin, Gothic, and 
Sanscrit languages, still such undeniable points of coincidence are 
discoverable even at this day in their grammatical systems, as, united 
to the 900 Sanscrit words still found in them, must render it in 
the highest degree probable that Sanscrit is the parent tongue from 
which the Greek, Latin, and Gothic languages have derived their 
origin. 



N N 2 



LIST OF SANSCRIT WORDS 



WHICH ARE POUND IN 



THE GREEK, LATIN, PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


*S ♦ 


aphenam 


OTTiOV 


opium 


afiun 


opium 


opium 




<mQm 


3T? 


ashta 


OXTW 


octo 


hasht 


acht 


eight 




3TRrf 


asti 

upar 

richate 

kalamam 

janu 

tara < 

twam 


£<7T» 
UTTSg 

oqsysTcu * 

KX\X[X0V 

yovv 


est 
super 
porrigit f 
calamum 

genu 

astrum "i 
sidera / 

tu 


ast 

abar 

rasad 

kalam 

zanu 


ist 

ober 

recket 

kiel 

knie 


is 

over 

reacheth 

quill 

knee 








°h^ 


^111 


ril<| 


TSlQSCt 

curry g 
<rv tu 


sitara 
to 


stern 
du 


star 

thou. A. S. 


thu 


fr 


dwi 


Sua) 


duo 


do 


zwey 


two 




^ 


nakham 


owya. 


unguem 


nakhan 


nagel 


nail 




=# 


nawam 
nawan 


veov 
sweet 


novum 
novem 


nau 
nah 


neu 
neun 


new 
nine 




•w*i 


^ttt 


nama 


ovofxx 


nomen 


nam 


nahme 


name 





* The o is, perhaps, the Sanscrit prep, a, ad. f The por is, perhaps, the Sanscrit prep, pra, pro. 
X In Pracrit, tu. 



278 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


^ 


no 


n 


non 


nah 


nein 


no 


VK 


padam 


irofia. 


pedem 


pa 


pfote 


foot 


fqrj 


pitr 


TtdTYlQ 


pater 


pidar 


vater 


father 


H<^1 


bharate 


fsgerui 


fert 


barad 


gebaret 


beareth 


tfTFJ 


bhratr 


tpgarng 


frater 


biradar 


bruder 


brother 


*Mf* 


madhyam 
mashaka 


pei<rov 

fJLVHX 


medium 
musca 


mian 
magas 


mitte 
miicke 


mid 
midge 


^l<=h 


^TTrf 


matr 


firirrig 


mater 


madar 


mutter 


mother 


f^^'^r) t 


mishi'ayate 


jCu£st«j 


miscet 


amizad 


mischet 


mixeth 


3^ 


musha 


pug 


mus 


mush 


maus 


mouse 


*PT 


yugam 


£evyos 


jugum 


yugh 


joch 


yoke 




lakayate 
sharkara 


crctx^ocg 


lingit 
saccharum 


lazad 
shakar 


lecket 
zucker 


licketh 
sugar 


*!<*< 


OT 


shash 


% 


sex 


shash 


sechs 


six 


TO 


sapta 


eirra. 


septem 


haft 


sieben 


seven 


ssr 


stha 


Jcrra 


sta 


istad 


steh 


stay 


^T 


swar 


(rtpoiiga. 


sphaera 


siphar 


sphare 


sphere 


3pT: 


antah 


evrog 


intus 








3TrfT x 

♦ * 


antarah 




intra 


ander 


unter 


under 


v±H< 


ambaram 


o^Sgov 


imbrem 








3pcr 


amsha 


0/x.og 


ansa 










aksha 
ajate 


a.%cov 


axis 
agit 




achse 


axis 


3T^1d 


* ^i 


ajirum 


wygov 


agrum 




acker 


acre 


3r^TrT 


adanti 


&QVTOU 


edunt 




essen 


eat 


3^r 


adia 


ijSt] 


hodie 




heute 




* Prac. maki. 


f In Pi 


rac. the r, w 


lien joined to a 


nother cons 


onant, is gei 


lerally omitted. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



279 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 




anya 


evveoj ixXXoi 


alii 






any 


v±MI 


3HT 


apa 1 
awa J 


oltto 


ab 




ab, auf 


of, off 


vi|R 


awim 


oh 


ovem 






ewe 


3fft 


ashrim 


axf^v 


aciem 








3f*ft 


asau 


OS 


is 








3ft 


aham 


eywv 


ego 




ich 


I. A. S. ie 


3ffW 


asthi 


0<7TS0V 


os ossis 




, 




3TTt 


aptum 


a.7TTe<T$xi 


aptare 










ayum 


cacuv 


aevum 








<HM< 


alayam 


civXyv 


aulam 




halle 


hall 


3m 


ashtra 


aidyg 


aether 








<HkMI 


atma 


UT[J.0{ 






athem 




^t 


ita 


ire 


ite 








^fcT 


iti 


SITU 


ita 










itarum 


krs^ov 








other 


<K»I 


irinum 


egypov 


eremum 








3H 


uttam 


uerov 


udum 






wet 


3£ 


udra 




lutra 




otter 


otter 


3^ 


udhas * 


ovQctp 






euter 


udder 


Tq- 


upa 


V7T0 


sub 








3>ft 


ubhau 


apipw 


ambo 








3t 


urum 


eupuv 






ur 




• 


ulkah f 
karatram 


Kgarrigoi 


ulcus 
craterem 








=H*I 


■s 


kalate 


x=Ast«i 


callet 








eh^H 




* The final s is ol 


'ten changec 


into r. 




f Flame, 1 


ire. 



280 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 





Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


• 


kalasham -I 
kumbhi 


xuXafiov 
xvXixct 

KVfJ^Sr) 


calathum 1 
calycem J 

cymba 




kelch 


chalice 




f^s 


kula 


<xys\r) 




gillah 








kupam * 
krittih 


ctxutoj 


cupam 
cutis 




kufe 


coop 


<$M 


chR^ 


krimilam 


xajx>jAov 


camelum 




kamel 


camel 




kwa 
khilam 


xoiXov 


quo 
ccelum 


ku 






R^i^ 


3T^ 


gala 




gula 


galu 


kehle 


gullet 




guram 


•yugov 


gyram 








•MWM 


grasate 


•ygctcsTcti 








grazeth 




gharmam 


Sep/iov 


N. 


garm 


warm 


warm 




cha 


X0CJ 


que 










churati 
chusayati 
chora 
janitr 


<paog 
yevvYjTwg 


urit 
sugit 
fur 
genitor 


chusad 


sauget 


charreth 
sucketh 




^IHH 


ITFT 


gnatam 
takshate 1 
stagate J 


yvwTov 
o-Teyerai 


notum 
tegit 




decket 


theciath A. S. 


^3T^ 




tanum 




tenuem 


tanak 


diinne 


thin 




tapati 
tar man 




tepet 
terminus 


tabad 


tei'min 


term 


HH*t 


rTT^T 


tanam 


TOVOV 


tonum 




ton 


tone 


1% 


trih 


TgSS 


tres 




drey 


three 


♦ ♦ 


dantam 


oSovra 


dentem 


dSndam 


zahn 





* A receptacle. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



281 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


ZJ3 


dakshah 
dadami 




dexter 
do 


dadam 






«ir 


<i^i 


datr 


Borrjp 


dator 


dadar 






^ 


danam 


$011/0$ 


donum 








^r 


dasha 


8sxa 


decern 


dah 






^m 


dashamam 
damayate 
diwiam 
dish ate 


8(ov 

8o?CET«J 


decimum 
domat 
divum 
docet 


daham 


zahmet 


tameth 


r^ * 






duhitr 
dewam 


Seov 


deum 


dokhtar 


tochter 


dochter, Scot. 


** 


deham 


Bsfj-xg 




andam 






TO- 


dhara 


spa 


terra 








SJFT 


dhama 


dcUfjLU 


domus 








^ 


naktam 


vvxra. 


noctem 








*WT 


nabhasa 


vefo; 


nubes 








^TCT 


naddham 




nodum 




knoten 


knot 


=TFT 


nawam 
nasa 


vuuv 


navem 
nasus 


nau 


nase 


nose 


-1IMI 
r*"* 


MM 


patim * 


7ro<nv 


potem 


biid 






• 


path am 
padatam 


■KOLTOV 


peditem 


piadah 


pfade 


path 


M<ld 


M$Jd 


prachati 1 
papracha J 




poposci 


porsad 


fraget 




MM^ 




paru 


Trvg 






feuer 


fire 


M<d 


pardate 


/38e£T«* 

* A 


pedit 

lord, a husban 



d. 




farteth 



282 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 





Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin; 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


<n^ 


patram 

pitam 

piwate 

putrarn 

puyam 

puras 

purim 

pra 

pranta 

proshate 

plawate 

plihan 

psate 

phullam 

bhakshayate 

bhawate 

bhumi 

bhrajate 

bliruh 

madate 

madhu f 

manate 

manas 

mahatwah 

mahah 

mahuim 


7T0T0V 
7nST«l 

7TU0V 

nugoc 

7T0AIV 
TTQO 

ttXovstoci 

QuWov 

(ZoirxsTai 

fverca 

cpgvysTM 
fxeSu 

[AVCtSTOll 

[x,svog 
jAsyeOos 

[4.01 


paterem 

potum 

bibit 

puerum 

pus 

prae 

pro 

frontem 

lavat 
lien 

folium 

pascit 

fuit 

humus 

fiigit 

madet 

monet 
mens, tis 

magnus 
mihi 


pur 

afruzad 

bawad 
bum 

abru 

mai 

mah 


vor 

fronte 

braune 

meth 
meynet 

macht 

mich 


fore 

burh, A. S. 

front 
spleen 

beeth. A.S.beoth 

brow 

mead 
meaneth 

might 












MINcj 


w™ 




VT: 


^<d 


TO" 



* The root is U^f prush. 



f Spirituous liquor ; also honey. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



283 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


£f 


me 


(X.S 


me 






me 


5TT*T 


masa 


pet; 


mens, sis 








fsTrT 


mitam 




metitum 






meted 


f*T 


mira 




mare 




meer 


mere A. S. 


^ 


mritam 




mortuum 


murdah 






3"^ 


yam, yam 


OV, Y}V 


eum, earn 








^ 


yat 




id 






it 


^il(rl 


yunjante 
yuwanah 


^s'jyvvvToti 


jungunt 
juvenis 


juwan 


Jung 


young- 


*J<H': 


T^r 


ratham 


petiyv 


rhedam 








TST 


rasah 


sga-Yj 


ros 








TFT 

On 


raga 1 
rosha J 
rajate 


ogyv) 






rasen 
reisset 


rage 


t^Std 


ORd 


rohitam 
lapana * 


sgevSov 


labium 


lab 


roth 
lippe 


red 
lip 


<^M-1 




liptam 

lubhiate 

lochayati 


ctXsKpQev 


litum 
lubet 
lucet 




liebet 


/ loveth. 

\ A. S. lufath 

A. S. lixeth 




<3V4Niri 




wakshate 

wamate 

warahah 




auget 
vomat 
verres 




wachset 
vomiret 


waxeth 

vomiteth 

boar. A. S. bare 


<^H 




3M<MM 


wastyayati 




vastat ■ 




wiistet 


wasteth 


♦ 


wahate 
wacham 


0^£ST«» 

otct«v 


vehit 
vocem 






A CH *i 




|R<M 


widanti 


stiovra.1 


vident 




weissen 


A. S. witon 






* 


f The mouth. 










o o 2 









284 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


Iwrr 


widhawa 




vidua 


biwa 


witwe 


widow 


f^TT 


wina 


uvev 


sine 




ohne 




R<: 


wirah 


jjgCUJ 


vir 






A. S. wer, fira 


3^ 

• 


wepate 
shankham 


xoyxw 


concham 


bafad 


webet 


weaveth 


sn'^<Gi 


STrT 


shatam 


sxxtov 


centum 


sad 






STffi 


shala 


<TX oXy l 


schola 




schule 


school 


^3J 


shringa 




cornu 


sarun 


horn 


horn 


sfcf: 


santah 




sanctus 






saint 


*rc; 


sam 


<TVV 


cum 


helm 






,, r>s 


sarpate 


kg-Kerni 


serpit 








MMr| 


*nf*T 


sami 
siwati 


V' 


semis 
suit 






seweth 




MI<M 


sidati 




cedet 






cedeth 


^ 


seru * 


creiga. 


serra 








*i^ 


strinute 


GTgWVVVTtXl 


sternet 










swapnam 




somnum 








^Rrl 


swanitam 




sonitum 






sound 


|^5f Zjl 2j"swiam,am,am 


eov, sr\v, eov 


suum, am,um 










hanum 
hayanam 


ysvuv 

svvov 


annum 


chanah 


kinn 


chin 


^*H 


fit* 


himam J 


x e, P a 


hyemem 








^T 


hora 


obgx 


hora 




uhr 


hour 


~£<A 


hradayam 


Kuefiiu. 


cor, cordis 




herz 


heart 


^T^frf 


hladati 




lsetatur 






gladdeth 


3f#i 


anke 


a w 











* Binding. 



f Jaw. 



\ Frost, cold. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



285 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


* ♦ 

<ir\~z{ an tram 


SVTSPOV 










* ♦ 

vii<s| amblam 


up&Xov 










3f^J akam 


*X°s 










3f^T agram 


agav 










3pcf agham 


ayog 










3f3f ajam 


uiyoi 










3ffcf ati 


aS>jv 










31*?T[|rf adashat 


e?«xe 










3rRT adhi 


«Si« 










* 

3f£.cT ad h warn 


oSov 










3f^T2f anaya 

• 


civicc 

ansigov 










sJ( M ^ aparam 


3^"JfJ ama 


oijx.a, 










^2r\ | <J^{ aiama * 


apw[x.u 

txpyrco-i 
xgyov 




aramid 






^ ij^^l aramate 


vij-G(r1 arch ate 
r ♦ 


Nijv5l«1 arjunam 


r *\ 


aiTesTtx.1 

UPKTTOV 










-^I^^H arthayate 
3j"2j" aria 1 


^ \ ^ arishtam J 


-^ ^) alam 


x\i$ 










•N *\ 


PgVSTM 










sijcj 4j6rt awarohate 


<ir\ t<H r\ asiate 


UKTUBTCtl 










• 

3f[3T^" agraham 


ctyqctv 










^ j \ <i*\ q admawara 


odvvriv 










<H 1 \ &.<M \r\ adriyate 


«lSs£T«« 











* A garden. 



286 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


Englisli. 


«\ 


OTTofteSTXt 

wfskip.ov 
ugxSov 

*gns 

o\ov 
uguov 

aAei 

spa. 
I0J 

CtdsTCtl 
OtTOV 

pesrui 
ti\J/ov 

egiov 
so; 

0PjJ.Y}V 
UQ0VQO.V 

onrai 

sxarspov 
otnov 
auyyjv 
axuvQ-qv 






+ Spe 


aks. 


•^i 1 M 1 <\*1 apadate 

<$\ \l^\^ ) ^ \r\ aphalamana 

• 


3JJi-{ amam 


3fl^ ardra 

• 

3fT^jQf arawam 


<H | <: arah * 


s*l \r*i alani 


s^ |^j«-| asanna 

^% iddhe 

< tJ ishu 
£^<£{n idayate 


^<<Mn irayate t 

^T2( uchcham 

♦ 
^<; udam 

3T/T urna 

^b| usha 
^T^T urmim 


^*3 O urwaram 


^^rl uhate 

• 


^-^H ^ ekataram 


^[ 1°^ okam 


•£\ |v5t ojam 
« « 


°h^ °h kantakam 

* The planet Mars 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



287 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


♦ 


kapalam 


xsipaX*]v 










«hMM 


^ 


kara 

akara 


a%etg 










<h<h 


r • 


karkaram 


xawctpov 










«tol< 




kalyara 


xaXov 










<*Rr|< 


kastiram 


XOMTtTiTSgOV 












kalam 
kirate 


XS\a.V 

xsgctercii 










T^h<H 


fert 


kilate 


KYiXeSTCtl 










R^N 


kilusha 


jo)A«j 










f^" 


kilam 


rjAov 










^ 


kunda * 


xovSu 












kutih 

kulayam 


xutso; 
xaXiav 










$rtM 


$* 


kumam f 


XVf/,Cl 










*tftfr 


konam 


yovav 










ch°<M 


kravviam 


xqectg 










fft 


kruram 


xgvegov 










SPJpt 


kshanuti 


xuivstoh 












kshoni 


^Smv 










fstRw 


khalinam 


^a\ivov 










^ 


khedah 


XY]do$ 










•^ * 


kholam 


■%oXov 










<^H 


3TT 


gam 


yyv, yuv 










f^TU 


giram 


yrjpvv 










?jt 


guram 

* A pitche 


xugiov 
r. 






f A lake. 





288 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 



Greek. 



Sfft 

ST?* 



>A 



3PTrT 

feTT: 

fi n 
3TUT 

rT rTT 

i 



ghoram 
charma 



yuvgov 
iegjxci 



chaya 


<TKIX 


ch urate 


%VgiT0ll 


jagarte 


eyeigctrcti 


jani 


yvvrj 


jirah 


yrjgag 


jiwate 


IfjTUl 


jirna 


ysgoov 


tarn, tarn 


rov, rr\v 


tanote 


TEWCtTUi 


tarpate 


TBq-KSTUl 


tijate 


§i)y*Ttt.i 


tokam 


T0X.0V 


trashiate 


rgscrsTCit 


trasayate 


TOtpX(T<T£Tat 


trikhate 


T § s X STai 


dasa 


5*15 


dahate 


Saierai 


dus 


Suj 


duyate 


Su«st«» 


dewaram 


dxrjg 


di'isham 


$;g%iv 


drate 


lga.sra.1 


drum 


Sguv 


dhonayate 


8oV££T«J 


nah 


vpog 



Latin. 



Persian. 



charm 
say ah 



German. 



zan 



ziad 



tizad 



tarzad 



dehnet 



English. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



289 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


^ ^ 


nedate 
nayate 


0VS»5»£T«« 

VESTCtt 












IT 

5ftt 

*\ 


nara 

niram * 

i 

nemam 

pachate 
patate 


ocvrjp 

VYjgOV 
VO[X.OV 
■7Te<7(TSTCH 
7T17TTSTCH 




nar 
pazad 


. 




yr\r{ 


W% 


patram 
patriate 


7T«T££TaJ 






' 




HV\r\ 


Tj7^ 


paniam 
parayate 


KOVOV 

iregotSTUi 






, 




MK^ri 


TO 


para 
pari 
parut 












^ 


^TTT 


param 
palan 


7T£g«V 










MfcH 




pasham 
piwam 


mov 




° 








puras 
pelate 


ngos 










1*1 + 


pradhana 

prastaram 

plushate 

bibhete 

bhalakam 

bhakshate 


-TTSTgOV 

QtSoTM 

(puysTcti 






bebet 














1 




* Water. 






fir 


i Pracrit, pa 


thdr. 



p p 



290 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


*(1%: bhallih 


fieXos 










H7T bharam 


/3«gov 










HI<?VH bhalayate 


/3«AXsTa» 










ijf^" bhritim 


fi§0T0V 










i-|^ mantram 


fAUVTtV 










H \r\ matim 


jttrjTiv 










♦ 

*i r Q maniam 


]W.))VIV 










r • 


/Aotguytiov 

fj.e\oc8gov 










^ cf-^ markatam 

• 


H <?*yi i, malaturam 


^ \ <?y\ malinam 


|U.sX«v 










^^ric^ mastaka 


JfrJ J J 1 1 ^ mahagaram 


[Aeya.gov 










JfJ m5 


M 










f\*\ J, 


Ofj.og^sTa.1 










<Hm^H T amarkshiate 


• 

3T3cf mukham 


[J.VX0V 










IT^ muram 


[/.oogov 










*{<cj murkham 


pctgyov 










*-[U|ci mrinate 


jxugvsrcn 










lj"t|H medhate 


j«,eSsTaj 










Jf^ melam 


0|U.iAov 










H"]^ t moghah 


iaa>v 










i{ 1 ( £ rl mohite 


M ^ *1 yawana 


*s 


ge^£T«< 










^•c( <>J r| rach ay ate 


•^ "s 


g££T«» 










<J<l(r1 riyate 


♦ 

^3" laghum 


sAap£UV 











* Mahat agaram, a great house. 



•j- The initial a is a preposition. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



291 



Sanscrit. 



Greek. 



Latin. 



Persian. 



German. 



English. 






laghishtam 

lapsiate 

laya 

lawanatn 

lupiate 

wayas 

warayate 

wagmi 

wanim 

wate 

watim 

wadam 

weshiate 

shankuh 

shakayate 

shuniam 

shete 

samam 

sityam 

sima 

su 

suranga 

sewate 

stomam 

sthawaram 

sthiram 



sKd^iCTTOV 

Kyjiov 

(3k>s 

agesTXt 

fiuyfiot. 

«ST«» 

«>)T>]V 

auStjv 

(TO)XS£Ta» 

X6V0V 

XHTOU 

OfAOV 

CTiTOV 

0-yjy.x 

sv 

(rrigctyya. 

creSsrott 

<TT0fJ.CC 
0-TSgSOV 



wehet 



bad 



asaid 



* A landmark, a boundary. 



f The head. 



PP 2 



292 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 





spharate 

sphalate 

harate 

hetu 

helim 

antagam 

anjante 

antamam 

antaritam 

anwitam 

ambati 

agnim 

arati 

arjati 

artham 

awagitam 

awati 

asim 

aplutam 

asiam 
i i 

arasia 

idam 

iwati 

uttamam 

udarum 

ulwam 

urwim 


vntxiget 




(TfOtWsTCil 


♦ ♦ 


CtlgSSTOll 
O.ITHX. 

r)A»ov 






* ♦ 












^Rri 




3rf?f 












^hPm 




<*H(d 




3fRf 












• 




3fW 

• 









Greek, 



Latin. 



antiquum 



unguunt 



intimum 

interitum 

unitum 

ambit 

ignem 

ira, iratus 

urget 

artem 

abjectum 

avet 

ensem 

ablutum 

os, oris 

aeris 

idem 

ivit 

optimum 

uterum 

alvum 

arvum 



Persian. 



German. 



English. 



erz 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



293 



Sanscrit. 



3R 
3KfcT 

^rdfrr 

♦ 

c^| rp] | ^ karagaram 

f^rT kit 

T c h'i|rl FTT kiyatam, tam 

ch<^ T kulam 

♦ 

^r 



ushitam 

urdhawam 

riksha 

rha 

erakam 

kam 

karri, kam 

kanati 

kati 

kadati 

karoti 

karpasum 

karman 

kaluka 

katam 



kulam 

kulati 

krichram 

ketayati 

kesha 

khandati 

kharam 

* An incantation. 



Greek. 



Latin. 



Persian. 



ustum 

arduum 

ursus 

Rhea 

ariem,hircum 

aquam 

quem, quam 

canit 

quot 

caedit 

gerit 

carbasum 

carmen 

caligo 

cautem 

carcerem 

quot 

quantum, tam 

cellam 

collem 

celet 

crucem 

citat 

caesaries % 

scindit 

acrem 



khirs 



German. 



English. 



f An abode. 
I Keshara also occurs in Sanscrit, but it signifies the filaments of a plant. 



294 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 



* r^ 


khetam 
grawam 




chandati 




chakwati 
chatur 




chikete 
jantam 




janitam 




jarjati 


d^frT 

♦ • 

rTrT 


tandati 
tautam 


rTRT 


tarjati 

tata 

tuliam 




tejati 




damitam 




daritam 

diwam 

diwasa 




j diwaspatih 
durbalam 




dolayati 

nah 

natam 

naptam 

nagam 

* Protects. 



Greek. 



Latin. 



scutum 

gravem 

candit 

coquit 

quatuor 

scit 

gentem 

genitum 

jurgat 

tundit 

tentam 

turget 

tata 

talem 



tegit 



domitum 

territum 

divum 

dies 

divespiter 

debilem 

tollit 

nos 

nutum 

nepotem 

anguem 



Persian. 



German. 



English. 



f Sky, day. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



295 



Sanscrit. 






qr?r 
ftfffF 



nasham 

nidam 

pandati 

patalam 

padayati 

param 

paramam 

paritam 

parusha 

palati 

pashu 

paschat 

■Ut \s w . • 

parayati 

pinkti 

pinashti 

pishtam 

putam 

paitram 

polati 

plawati 

phandam 

balam 

balhati 

bahih 

bibheda 

belayati 



Greek. 



Latin. 



nex necem 

nidum 

pandit 

patulum 

vadat 

purum 

primum 

peritum 

ferox 

alit 

pecu 

post 

parit 

pingit 

pinsit 

pistum 

putam 

patrium 

pollet 

fluit 

fundum 

bellum 

valet 

foris 

fidi 

vellit 



Persian. 



German. 



English. 



floweth 



* An army. 



296 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 



3T3frT 

f*FTTfcT 

THtff 

THTfrT 

Tit 

#* 

fwfrr 



r « 



^f^T 



bharitam 

mandati 

mayati 

maritam 

mritiam 

mahiySh 

minati 

muram 

radati 

raj am 

ragnim 

rajati 

rayam 

ritim 

renum 

romantha 

ladati 

linayati 

locam 

lokayati 

wimshati 

wah 

wat 

waram 

warma 

warmitam 



] 



Greek. 



Latin. 



viridem 
mandat 
meat 

mortem 

majus 

minuit 

murum 

radit 

regem 

reginam 

radiat 

rem 

ritum 

arenam 

ruminatio 

ludit 

lenit 

locum 

loquitur 

viginti 

vos 

ut 

virum 

arma 

armatum 



Persian. 



German. 



English. 



* Encircling. 



f A husband. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



297 



Sanscrit. 



TOfcT 



_% 



SJErfcf 

TO 



walati 

waste 

wastram 

wartati 

wadim 

wamani 

wijitam 

wedati 

shamsati 

shadati 

shuddham 

shush ati 

shulwarim 

shlutam 

shwashuram 

sanktam 

sakhyam 



chihnam 
sapati 
samam 
sudati 

suriam 

i i 

scandati 
stanayati 
slariman 
spritam 



} 



Greek. 



Latin. 



velat 

vestit 

vestem 

vertit 

vatem 

foemina 

victum 

di-vidit 

censet 

cadit 

sudum 

siccat 

sulphurem 

solutum 

socerum 

cinctum 

socium 

signum 

sapit 
summum 
sudat 
solem 
s candit 
tonat 
stramen 
spiratum 
Q Q 



Persian . 



German. 



English. 



schwaher 



298 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin; 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


• 

t^^ spriham 
^ 4 ^ ' ^ sprihati 




spem 

sperat 

fcetum 

suum 

su-surrum 

suadet 

sonum 

sepit 

hora 


angusht 

anjir 

ambar 

hamishah 

ab 

ab 

weiranah 

arjad 

arj 

an 

alu 

aftab 

ash 

asp 

astar 

afat 

yabad 


ambra 
essung 


finger 
fi g 

AMBER 

always 
water 

splendour 

a desert 

it costs 

respect 

that 

an edible root 

the sun 

food 

horse 

mule 

calamity 

obtains 


I ^"PTri sphitam 
^^" swam 

• 

i^{ i^ swaram 


tqi^lrl swadati 

♦ 


t*T!*T swanam 


^7M 1 ri swapati 

^ 1 i_ hora 

• 


<H j J^ angushta 


3\ \ -S| ^ anjira 

• 


*$m \ ambara 


^PlXI anisham 


^ | M : apah 
3]THT abha 


3{^U5^ aranium 


<H <cj^ M arghayati 

3f^ archa 

♦ 
3fSr amum 

3R7S alu 


s^j | cj fl 1 M awi, tap5 

• 


3J8,"(«"| ashanam 


s^'^cj ashwa 


sJT 51 ^"^ ^ ashwatara 


^HIM^ apat 


^IMM apati 



* Two words ; am, the sun, and tapa, heat. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



299 



Sanscrit. 





asha 


3nfstir 


ashira 


3n^K 


ahara 


^r 


imam 


^1 


ushtra 


>%ct8| 


riktha 


^Tfi 


eka 


^T 


1 \J w 

kansa 


^M 


kachapa 


^rPt 


kapi 


^TtrT: 


kapotah 




kapha 


^Om 


karoti 


*£• 


karda 


*<A< 


karpura 


*m 


kama 




karia 


3^i< 


kunjara 


5* 


kumbha 


<3np^5\ 


kubja 




kushala 


W^ 


kurati 


^i=r: 


ketah 


«jl« 


krishta 


fcfiPr 


krimi 


^trf: 


kritah 




* Mud, clay 



Greek. 



Latin. 



Persian. 


German. 


English. 


az 




desire 


az 




fire 


ahar 




food 


in 




this 


ushtar 




camel 


rakht 




valuables 


ek 




one 


kas 




goblet 


kashaf 




tortoise 


kappi 




monkey 


kabutar 




pigeon 


kaf 




foam 


kard 




does, has done 


gird f 






kafur 




camphor 


kam 




love 


kar 




affair 


kinjar 




elephant 


khum 




ajar 


kuzh 




humpbacked 


khush 




happy 


khorad 




eats 


kad 




house 


kashtah 




tilled 


kirm 


wurm 


WORM 


kheridah 




purchased 



f Dust. 



Q Q 2 



300 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 




krosha 
kroshati 






karuh 
kharushad 


kreischet 


a coss 

CROAKETH 


cJOTTrT 


^T 


kshapa 






shab 




night 


fin: 
$tofrr 


kshira 

kshobhati 

shona 






shir 

ashubad 

khun 




milk 

agitates 

blood 




khadga 
khanda 
khanati 






karg 
kand 
kanad 


{ 


rhinoceros 
any thing which 

CANDIES 

digs 


4$FTfrf 


^T 


khara 






khar 




ass 


<c|^ 


khala 

khashati 

khashpa 

khani 

khushati 






gil 

kushad 

khashm 

kan 

kashad 




earth 
kills 
anger 
a mine 
draws 


<<=|MM 




s3 


3T3T 


ganja 






g» n j 




treasure 


WFi 


gandhaka 






gandak 




brimstone 


JT3T 


g a J a 






gaz 




a cubit 




gama 

garjati 

garhati 

gaweshayati 

gahwara 






gamf 

gharid 

girad 

kushad 

gabara 


{ 


makes a loud 
noise 

seizes 

endeavours 
cavern 


JTffrT 


! 


J l^< 


jtut 


guna 






gun 




colour 




guha 
godhumah 






gau 
gandum 




a cave 
wheat 



Going. 



f A step. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



301 



Sanscrit. 



Greek. 



fMtfrT 
W 

3RfrT 

3fTrT: 

3rR7rTT 

:gfcr 

^3ffrT 

rftt 

^T 

37Tfcf 



gauh 

chakra 

chamasa 

charwati 

chinoti 

chuwra 

chatra 

janjati 

jagati 

jatah 

jamata 

jihwam 

jiiti 

jehati 

i i 

tanjati 

tanu 

tama 

tapa 

tiram 

trasa 

dawati 

dama 

daru 

dirgha 

duhanti 



Latin. 



Persian. 



chirkh 
chamchah 
kayad 
chinad 
chihrah 
chatar 
jangad 
giti 
zadah 
damad 
ziban 
zudi 
jahad 
zah 
tanjad 
tan 
tam 
tab 
tii- 
tars 
dawad 
damf 
dar § 
dir 
dozand 



German. 



kuhe 



kauet 



zanket 



English. 



COW 

wheel 
spoon 

CHAWETH 

gathers 

countenance 

umbrella 

fights 

the world 

born 

son in law 

the tongue 

quickness 

makes exertions 

bowstring 

tightens 

the body 

darkness 

heat 

arrow 

fear 

runs 



SlOW 

they milk 



* A cord. 



f A snare. 



\ Wood, timber. 



§ A gibbet. 



302 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 




dura 
dosha 






dur 
dosh 


{ 


distant 

arm, and also 
night 


<1NI 


^HM 


dhamati 






damad 




breathes 


^TfrT 


dharati 






darad 




holds 


VF5T 


dhaniah 






danah 




grain 




nagna 






nangin 




naked 


*Wfrf 


namati 
namasia 






namad 
namaz 




bends 
prayer 


-Wt<M 




nabhi 






naf, nab 


nabe 


NAVE 


MKd: 


nihitah 






nihadah 




placed 


q^ 


•-* "L ^ 

pancha 






panch 




five 


*3T 


panda 






pand 




advice 




paktum 






pukhten 




to cook 


M<*jR 


parediawi 

i i 






firda 




to-morrow 


mm(h 


pasati 






bast 




ties, tied 


mNr 


parshni 
pawaka 






pashnah 
pak 




the heel 
pure 


MM«ti 


S3 


pilu 






pil 




elephant 


gwf% 


pushayati 






pushad 




covers 




pura 






pur 




full 


Tjfe 


prishta 






pusht 




the back 


MdIM 


pratapa 






partab 




beaming 


rfafrT 


preshati 






firistad 




sends 


^r1% 


bandhayati 






bandah 


bindet 


BINDETH 




barha 






barz 




greatness 


slcW^t 


balawan 






pahlwan 




powerful 


m% 


bahu 






bazu 




the arm 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



303 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 




bukka 






boz 


bocke 


he-goat 


>ng* 


bhanu 






barm f 






>fm- 


bhima 






bim 




fear 


*N + 


bhumi 






bhum 




the ground 


ijb^l 


bheshaja 
majaja 






bazas hk § 
maghz 




the brain 


H-^UI 


*r^f 


marttia 






mard 




man 


3T^frT 


marshati 






amuzad 




forgives 


Ml^N 


mahisha 






gav, mish 




buffalo 


3H: 


mah 






mah 




moon 


«JKl 


mara 






mar 4- 








masha 






mash 




a kind of pulse 


RR< 


mihira 






mihr 




the sun 


5?cr 


mudra 






muhar 




signet-ring 


gffe 


mushti 






musht 




fist 


^** 


mriga 






murgh -j-f 






^q 


megha 






megh 




cloud 


3FT 


yawa 






jau 




barley 


t?T 


ranga 






rang 




paint 


<^ 


rajju 






razhah 




a cord 


* 


rawati 






rawad 




goes 


<^M 


rahasiam 






raz 




a secret 


TT^ 


raddha 






rad 




accomplished 




rama 






ram 




pleased 
poured out 


RcM 


riktSh 






rikhtah 




ft* 


risha 






rish 




wound 



* A prince. 
Killing. 



•f- A princess. 
4- A snake. 



f Medicine. 
** An animal. 



§ A physician. 

ft A bird. 



304 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek, 


Latin. Persian. 


German. 


English. 


^ *"> 


rochate 






rakhshad 




<Wn 




shines 


0*i ^ 


rochanam 
rohati 






roshan 
ruad 




splendour 
grows 


O^M 


Wjfrf 


langati 






langad 




limps 


TO 


laksha 






Ilk 




a lack, 100,000 


<=![«-<: 


wandih 






bandah 




prisoner 




watsah 
warjati 






bachah 
warzad 




child 
quits 


q^llct 


q-§ 


warsha 
walgam 
waraka 
wiasati 






barish 
ligam 
barah 
pashad 




rain 
bridle 
horse 
diffuses 


cj^ir 




°i|WM 


sn^fi 


shaka 






shaka 




doubt 


ST^^T 


shakuna 






shagun 


\ 


omen 

archer's guard for 


SJWfi 


shastaka 
shakha 






shast 
shakh 


the arm against 
the bowstring. 

branch 


SMHsf 


stwt 


shana 






shan 




whetstone 


STTTrT 


shata 






shad 




glad 


fs&T 


shira 






sar 




the head 


spr 


shubha 






khub 


hiibsch 


beautiful 


^ 


shushka 






khushk 




dry 


V*<" 


shukara 






khuk 




hog 


^ 


shurS 






shir 




lion 


sgnftfrr 


shrinoti 






shunad 




hears 


sNi 


shoka 






sog 




grief 


WPT 


shiama 






siah 




black 


v 3d 


shweta 






safid 




white 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



305 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German, 


English. 


r 


sajja 

sarshapa 

sahasra 






saz 

sarshap 

hazar 




apparatus 
mustard seed 
thousand 


^NM 


M^ 


MK« 


sadah 






sadah 




pure 


wm 


sayam 






sham 




evening 




sara 
sudate 






sar 
sudad 




excellent 
injures 


U<^ 


f?: 


shrishtah 






sirishtah 




created 


^ 


stutah 






situdah 




praised 


^o 


sthuri 






situr 




beast of burden 


sgpr 


sthanam 






stan 




place 


?^TJTT 


sthuna 






situn 




pillar 


^JT 


sphura 






sipar 




shield 


^K 


siada 






zud 




quick 


^ 


hasta 






dast 




hand 


^K 


hara 






har 




necklace 


3f^ 


U 1 u 

anka 








hanke 


HAUNCH 


3T7T3T ' 


angaja 








angst 


ANGUISH 


3ff|l 


akshi 








auge 


eye 


3tf* 


arbha 








erbe f 




3p$ 

• 


ashru 
ayasam 








zahre 
eisen 


a tear 
iron 


<HN*i 


^1 


uksha 








ochse 


ox 


3^d 


ubhayata 








beide 
eule 


BOTH 


^*h 


uluka 








owl. 


ot 


usha 








ash 


a pot 



* Child. 



R R 



f An heir. 



306 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 



3^" 


kania 


grerfrr t 


kusiati 


•>ii<* 


gara 


■Mllcl 


gati 


*fk 


gaura 


STR" 


ghasa 


^§ 


charma 




challi 


H^< 


chicheda 


f^TfcT 


chinatti 




jala 


rl^(r| 


tudati 


H^rfrT 


trashiati 


^fcT 


l 1 

dalati 


f^rfrT 


diwiati 


^iHpM 


drakhitam 


«Hfrf 


dhwanati 




dhwani 


M^M 


palati 


Mid 


pota 


^h 


phullati 


^^frr 


badati 


^ 


bahula 


m 


bhanga 


H£ 


bhadra 


>rafrr 


bhujati 



Greek. 



* A young girl. f A woman 

A screen. ** Divides. 



Latin: 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 




{ 


kivino f 






M.G. 








kiisset 


KISSETH 






gar 


very 






gehet 


GOETH 






grau 


white 






gras 


GRASS 






schirm || 








schale 


SHELL 






schiede 


divided 






schneidet 


cuts 






zahl 


number 






tbdtet 


kills 






durstet 


THIRSTETH 






theilet 


D.?ELATH,**A.S. 






taget 


D^EGIATH,! A. S. 






trocken 


dry 






donnet 


dinneth 






don 


din 






fliehet 


ELEETH 






boot 


BOAT 






bluhet | 


bloweth, like 
a flower 






badet 


BATHETH 






viel 


much 






bange 


fear 






bieder 


good 






beuget 


BOWETH Xt 


i. X Embraces. 


§ A shield. 


4- Becon 


ies day, daw 


neth. 


tt Utters 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



307 



Sanscrit. 



^frf 



*r£frr 









TO 









f^frf 



* The head. 
|| A bamboo. 



bhushati 

manushia 

march ati 

marddhati 

manawa 

munda 

muda 

moha 

mauli 

rakhati 

roma 

lashati 

wamsha 

wartati 

walka 

wardaram 

wahnim 

wasa 

wahanam 

windati 

wiwaha 

wega 

wen ati 

wela 

sunu 

stambha 



Greek. 



Latin. 



Persian. 



{ 



German. 



putze 

mensch- 
heit 

marschirt 

mordet 

mann 

mundf 

muth 

muhe 

maul § 



reget 



ram 
liistert 
binse ** 
werde 

balgtf 

wasser 

fon, M.G 

haus 

wagen 

findet 

ehe 

we<re 

o 

wahnet 
weile 
sohn 
stumpf 



English. 



f The mouth. 
** A rush. 



X The head. 
4- The bark of a tree. 

R R 2 



BUSKS, Scot. 

mankind 

MARCHETH 

murders 

MAN 
MOOD 

pain, trouble 

moves 
strength 

LUSTETH 
WEORTH, A. S. 
WATER 

fire 

HOUSE 

WAIN 

FJNDETH 

marr 

WAY 
WEENETH 

while (time) 

SON. A. S. SUNU 

stupid 

§ The mouth. 

XX Skin, husk. 



308 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 



3T^fcT 
3TWT 
3T%T 
3TT^f^ 

W 
JJUT 



sthalam 

sthira 

siona 



L 



J 



swastri 
amsa 
holati 
ata 
SrdSti 
alasa 
avvesh 
awali 
iddha 
rita 

karayati 
kalpati 
kuta 
kuttaiati 
kuyati 
kurula 
komala 
kwelati 
kshurati 
khalati 
khari 
khiati 
gana 



Greek. 



Latin. 



* Wandering. 



§ Apprehends. 



f Disponor. 



Persian. 


German. 


English. 




stelle 


STALL 




stier 


a steer 




sonne 


sun 




sch wester 


sister 




gans 


goose 




hiillet 


covers 

wathe, A. S.* 

hurteth 

lazy 

awise, A. S. f 

alley 

heat 

right 

gars, Scot.:f 

elyppath, A.S. § 

cot, cottage 

cutteth 

cooeth 

curl 

comely 

quaileth 

scoureth 




■ 


culleth 
scar 
quoth 
ganoh, A.S. || 


II M 


t M 
[ultitude. 


akes to do. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



309 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


JTfrT gati 
^Tm gardha 
->HH gita 










gait 

greed 

gyd, A.S.* 

gusheth 

grist 

syls, Scot. % 

cheat 

churneth 

sylath, A. S. || 

gell, Scot.** 

re-joiceth 

jumpeth 

that 

tree 

tosseth 

dust 

teareth, tore 

daunted 

dieth 

drubbeth 

deir, Scot. %% 

thought 

nigheth 

poundeth 

pot 

pusheth 


<4y[r\ ghashati 
ST? 1 ghrashta 
^"^"f^jTrr ch al aya ti 
Mid chata 


■^UU^Irt * churnayati 


B^^l 1 r| chalayati 


3T^i^\T jaluka 


^SlNM jushati 
Sr^frT jhampati 
rfr^ tat 

rf^T taru 


rlHm tasati 

♦ 

rTtfT tustam 


rT\<fri to.au 

* 

<^Tcf danta 


^ffrf drabhati 
iff^ dhira 
t£J |r1 dhiata 


«1<i|("r1 nayati 


^-^m pundati 
Tig- puta 
"CrajfrT pushati 



* A song. 
Deceives. 



f Grinded. 
** A leech. 



\ Strains. 
4- Decayeth, wasteth. 



Grinds, pounds. 

It Hold. 



310 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


^ r- 


pesati 






. 




paceth 


MMM 


Im^ 


priya 










fria, A. S. * 


(M'Mri 


priyantam 










freond, A. S. f 


rfV 


prauda 










proud 


TOfrT 


phalati 






* 




felleth 


§FT 


phena 










faem, A. S. J 


fS^rfrr 


bhikshati 










beggeth 


f>rw 


bhittam 










bit 


• 


madati 
maranam 










maddeth 
murrain 


-H <U| 


JT^pT 


mashuna 










messan, Scot. § 


*rf|w 


mShila 










meowla, A. S. || 


5TT^ 


mala 










male 


w; 


mrid 










mud 


^(d 


mathati 










mateth 


^M 


yata 










yode 


?^ 


yuddha 










guthe, A. S. ** 


1^ 


yuyam 










you 


TTirfrr 


ranati 










runneth 


fRtt 


rudhira 










rodra, Icelan. ff 


ft^: 


rodah 
lawana 










rodera, A. S. J^ 
leven 


cW*i 




loka 
watati 










look 

withath, A. S. §§ 


<=idM 


^r 


wadha 










beadu, A. S. || || 


Mr + 


wanam 










won 



* Affection. 
A woman. 

§§ Joins. 



f Loving, a friend. 
** Battle, war. 

|| || Conceals. 



:f Foam. 
ff Blood. 



§ A dog. 
Xt The sky. 
4- An abode. 



PERSIAN, GERMAN, AND ENGLISH LANGUAGES. 



311 



Sanscrit. 



*^Q waiam 

^"^Trf warati 

cJS.1 washa 

^T^TkT wasati 

^"^Tm" waskati 

cj \g warha 

cfT*T wana 

c( | ^^j \ rT warayati 

^TT<\T wida 

^"t|ij fr| wundayati 

^ eft wrika 

^<^U| wrikna 

^n^T wiadha 

5U<^(rT shandati 

SJofi^ shakala 

«t,| ^ shara 

SJ^T tt shalana 

Srf^rT tt shalita 

8[rt%J §§ shalitra 

S[frfWf shilita 

S[U5"frr shotati 

VK<^| satya 

$T^ sad 

^f^T sama 

<-( ^ sara 

HUT supa 



Greek. 



Latin. 



Persian. 



German. 



English. 



* Guards. 
Hunting. 

&& Coverer. 



f Dried, withered. X Learning. 

** Arrow. f f Covering. 

Illl Truth. 



we 

wriath, A. S. * 

wish 

was 

whisketh 

very 

wan 

warath, A. S. X 

widda 

woundeth 

wargr, Iceland. $ 

broken 

veidi, Iceland. || 

shendeth 

scale of a fish 

gar, A. S. ** 

shieling, Scot. 

shield 

shelter 

skilled 

shutteth 

sathr, Iceland. || || 

sad 

same 

siar, Iceland. (- 

soup 

§ Wolf. 
XX Covered. 
4 A lake. 



312 



SANSCRIT WORDS FOUND IN THE GREEK, LATIN, ETC. 



Sanscrit. 


Greek. 


Latin. 


Persian. 


German. 


English. 


I s ) -T-f^l 










saileth 

sack 

steameth 

steam 

stoppeth 

sinew 

sweven 

suurg, A. S. * 

sorroweth 

sweateth 

sweir, Scot, f 

hieth 

harryeth 

hiccough 

hight. A. S. hast 

vieth 


ti^lrl selati 


V|<Tcfi sewaka 
f*rR^fri stimiati 
^rTJf sterna 
^rTlHfrr stobhati 
SJT3J" snayu 
<-cj g swapna 
^cj i \ swarga 


^ ^ m swarati 


^(jjrl swedati 
<-cj ^ swaira 


<^i| H hayati 


^^fd harati 
f^fc| hikka 
^ri huta 
^ij fcl hwayati 



* Heaven. 



f Self-willed. 



APPENDIX. 



No. I. 

LIST OF SANSCRIT, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC WORDS WHICH OCCUR IN 
THE ZEND VOCABULARY OF ANQUETIL DU PERRON. 



Zend. 


Sanscrit. 


Persian. 


Arabic. 


French. 


edi 


r~«- 






si 


<NK y adi 


edenanm 


\ij Vj^fT adhuna 






maintenant 


erthehe 


3f5T artha 






explication 


ezaede 


p~^ 




s\. zada 


il devient grand 


este 


«S\ \ *T\ asti 


tlXw! ast 




il est 


astern 
aspo 


3TfrST asthi 


i-mm\ asp 




un os 
cheval 


si( *c| ashwa 


ashte 
ashtengom 


3^? ashta 


Ck&,& hasht 




huit 

huit angles 


•^^ctllUl ashtakona 


aschtesh 




^^S ashti 




la paix 


eghe 


• 

3Pcf agham 






mechancete 


emeshe 




&iij^£> hamishah 




toujours 


ehmakem 


vi^jfi-j |c^ asmakam 






de nous 


ehobie 




«_^=i khub 




bon 


eetee 


5T^" y ate 






eux 


eokhte 


q \ pf; wakti 

•s. 






il dit 


eoschtre 


<±\)y oshta 

♦ 






levre 
dedans 


eantere 


sjf rl \ antara 


^•\ ander 


1 



s s 



314 



SANSCRIT, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC WORDS 



Zend. 


Sanscrit. 


Persian. 


_ Arabic. 


French. 


baksched 
bereete 


r^ 


bharati 


«X>i«j bakhshed 
2>jj barad 


{ 


il donne liberale- 
ment 

il porte 


H<M 


beshe 






U*f> besh 




sant^ (bonne) 


beodo 
beouad 


W$ 


baddha 
bhawati 


*yi bud 




jointure (liee) 
il est 


H^ld 


bienghe 


*frT 


bhima 


{+> bim 




crainte 


bonen 






(jj bun 




racine 


buraie 


*Pr 


bhumi 


f>J bum 




la terre 


ted 


rT^T 


tada 






maintenant 


tedjerim 
terestche 


^^ 


trasyati 


<^y tarsad 


cf'^sji' tajarri 


courant 
il craint 


5|^M(r| 


tesched 






*)" tazad 




il s'applique 


tenom 


^ 


tanu 


tf tan 




corps 


teschro 




tisra 






trois 


djeoueeto 


^fHM 


jiwati 


•Nsj ziad 




il vit 


djefre 






j*j zafar 




bouche 


djened 
khenghe 




kanya 


^j zanad 




il frappe 
fille 


^1 


khresio 






U-A^ kharus 




coq 


kschefe 


WW 


kshapa 


V*^ shab 




nuit 


kscheeo 






s ^ shah 




roi 


kschecto 






«** K shid 




brillant 


kschethro 


^T 


kshatra 






roi 


kschtsum 


W 


shashtam 






sixieme 


kschnota 






^A-*jai khushnud 




agreable 


kschovesch 






u^*« shash 




six 


khore 






*;>*»■ khorad 




il mange 



OCCURRING IN ZEND VOCABULARY OF ANQ. DU PERRON. 



315 



Zend. 


Sanscrit. 


Persian. 


Arabic. 


French. 


dedaete 


r~^ 


dadati 






il donne 


«IM 


dakhmo 


^^ 




*si.i dakhm 




cimetiere 


dereto 
desmehe 


«fa 


darati 
dashama 


v,ta darad 




il a 
dixieme 


<*W 


descheno 


tfwt 


dakshina 






la main droite 


deschte 






£>*»2> dast 




main 


dentano 


tF 


danta 


l$j|<>J.s dandanha 


, 


les dents 

/ 1 


deosche 


<)ni 


dosha 


jiji dosh 




epaule 


dkeescho 






(Ji*S kish 




loi 


dradjo 






jl,i diraz 




etendu 


doseh 


^ 


dosh 






le mal 


doue 


ft 


dwi 


ji do 




deux 


douetche 






jfijl^i duazdah 




douze 


dad 


*"\ . • 




iJi dad 




il donna 
lumiere 


reotchingem 


<H«i 


rochanam 


^ }J roshan 




rane 






(j_\)j ran 




cuisse 


zeescho 






CJi,\ zasht 




mauvais 


zemo 






( ^ c j ) zamin 




terre 


zenghe 


ir^T 


, janga 






jambe 


zaresetche 






sj.^j zahrah 




fiel 


zaouere 






j!>j zur 




force 


sedid 




■ 


• 


Ju<x£ shadid 


dur 


stree 


«ft 


stri 






femelle 


staranam 






I^IX* sitara 




etoile 


sreono 






t^m~ sarun 




carne 


sreoni 






uir surin 




la fesse 


sreoued 






i^ «, surud 

s s c 2 




il chante 



316 



SANSCRIT, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC WORDS 



Zend. 


Sanscrit. 


Persian. 


Arabic. 


French. 


snaouere 






,j amm sinah ber 


{ 


jusques a la poi- 
trine 


se 






*** sih 




trois 


scheeto 






il& shad 




heureux 


schtoete 


^ 


stute 






il loue 


schodem 






*y* sud 




profit 


frezdaneom 






Ll^^Jj* firzandan 




enfans 


freeschte 






£«*«jqi fihrist 




table des matieres 


foehtane 






^jUu*u> pistan 




mamelle 


fedre 




pitri 


jjy pidar 




pere 


kerete 
kestched 


chOfa 


karoti 
kashchit 






il fait 
quelqu'un 


^ 


keie 


^ 


kah 


^ kah 




qui 


krschtee 


^& 


krishta 


#jj& kashtah 




(champ) laboure 


ganm 








*M ghanam 


betail 


gueosch 






LT^ g° sl1 




oreille 


gueete 






t^f 'git* 




le monde 


gueoue 


^ 


gau 


^ gav 




boeuf 


guerende 






s<X>»f girandah 




pleurant 


guerevned 






CJj? girift 




il prit 


gaem 


*ft: 


gam ah 


f If gam 




pas 


maksche 


TO! 


makshika 


(jX, magas 




mouche 


mediehe 






S ^L<, madah 




femelle 


medo 


*¥ 


madhu 






vin 


merete 


*R# 


martya 


«-* mard 




homme 


manm 






- man 




J e 


menthre 




mantra 






parole 


meete 


Hl^ld 


mayati 






il mesure 



OCCURRING IN ZEND VOCABULARY OF ANQ. DU PERRON. 



317 



Zend. 


Sanscrit. 


Persian . 


Arabic. 


French. 


meschte 


5« 


mushti 


u«>4 musht 




poing 


mejdem 






$y« muzd 




recompense 


ma 


HT 


ma 






non 


mate 


JTTrT 


matri 


j^Lo madar 




mere 


mae 


3T^T 


maha 


*^o mah 




grand 


nereseh 
neomehe 


5TT 


nara 
navama 


j-j nar 
(»^j naham 




un homme 
neuvieme 


*\dm 


neemen 
naere 


*S 


nari 


**o nim 




moitie 
une femme 


•ilO 


nafo 


fTTfX 


nabhi 


oLJ naf 




nombril 


vareete 


r~- 




^,L barad 




i] pleut 


vedoue 


R*H 


vidvan 






un savant 


verekehe 








o^ wark 


feuille 


vastre 


^ 


vastra 






habit 


veso 


3*scr 


vasha 






desir 


vefro 






ti^j barf 




neige 


veheschtem 






t^£>#j bihisht 




paradis 


vetchao 




vacha 






parole 


veedem 


R<i 


vida 






savoir 


veened 






«X*aj binad 




il voit 


vispe 


fq-sq- 


vishva 






tout 


vatem 


3TrT 


vata 


^Ij bad 




vent 


vo 


3": 


vah 






vous 


veherkehe 


¥*' 


vrika 






loup 


heksched 






^3^. khizad 




il se leve 


hede 


3fsr 


atha 






a present 


hapte 


*nw 


saptan 


4^out> ha ft 




sept 



318 



SANSCRIT, PERSIAN, AND ARABIC WORDS, ETC. 



Zend. 


Sanscrit. 


Persian. 


Arabic. 


French. 


hathre 






Ji\& hazar 




mille 


houere 






jy± khur 




soleil 


iekere 






/» jigar 




foie 


ioe 
ioushmakem 


* 


yushmakam 


3 \o 




il 

de vou» 


^pTTcfi 


iotomeante 
tchetro 




chatur 


(_^jL^iLa. jaduman 
_jl$=> chahar 




magicien 
quatre 


*<iK 


petesh 


Mid 


pati 






chef 


peresne 


Ml4 


parswa 






cote 


pesouo 
peoerim 


q^ 


pasu 
parama 




• 


quadrupede 
premier 


M<^ 


peo 
peantche dese 


• 


paya 
panchadasha 


siyL panzdah 




lait 
quinze 


M*K*I 


pethni 


q^fT 


patni 






femme (epouse) 


petho 


ttst 


patha 






chemin 


pschie 








<y£ shai 


quelque chose 


pothre 


T* 


putra 






fils 


pansenoseh 


mg 


pamsu 






poussiere 


paeri 


*rf\ 


pari 






autour 


pade 


<K 


pada 






pied 


onem 


^ 


unnam 






moiteur 


oroue 








^lj^,i arwah 


ames 


opero 


-4M< 


upara 


,\ aber 




dessus 


opem 


<MM 


ap 


.J ab 




eau 


othe 


^Tt% 


yati 






il va 


thri 


3(t 


tri 






trois 


sete 


§Trf 


shata 


<X* * a<1 




cent 



319 



No. II. 



LIST OF PERSIAN AND ARABIC WORDS WHICH OCCUR IN THE 
PAHLVI VOCABULARY OF ANQUETIL DU PERRON. 



Pahlvi. 


Persian. 


Arabic. 


French. 


ena 


tfl in 




ce 


ab 




v' ab 


pere 


abider 


j<y>. pider 




pere 


am 




j.5 umm 


mere 


amider 


j^us madar 


- 


mere 


amna * 




j+=> harnru 


ane 


avvela 




$ avval 


premier 


ann 


(jjl an 




cela 


azdeman 


lAiji azhdaha 




serpent 


asobar 


Jtyh asvar 




cavalier 


aslobar 


Jiykm\ astuver 




fort 


astoban 


^jl^aLy^-5 astukhan 




OS 


asder 




<XaJ asad 


lion 


arta 




^jOj\ ardu 


terre 


arboudjina 


sjjyii kharbuzah 




melon 


anboman 




uUs anab 


raisin 


aporna 


L*Jj biirna 




jeune personne 


avam 


*)j vam 




pr£t 


bena 




lo bina 


avec (avec nous) 


bonteman 




CkL> bint 


fille 


bita 




Ck.*j bait 


maison 


beba 




<_>L bab 


porte 



* In the Firhang Jihangiri, amra. 



320 



PERSIAN AND ARABIC WORDS OCCURRING IN 



Pahlvi. 


Persian. 


Arabic. 


French. 


bazanne 


>Mj zanu 




genon 


bonai 


>>L banu 




femme (princesse) 


balog 


*JTaLp palang 




leopard 


penadj 


U$j pahna 




etendu 


tina 

i 




^xti tinu 


boue 


'■ topah 




^■Lxj' tafah 


pom me 


toum 




(Lj tamm 


entier 


tora 




j^j thaur 


taureau 


tiba 




^lo daba 


cerf 


toun 


(jj tan 




corps 


', tin 




(jjj tin 


figue 


taba 




V^i dahabu 


or 


djetta 




«xX^» jild 


peau 


djak 




uTli zaka 


celui-la (il) 


djanver 


^l?^?" janvar 




qui jouit de la vie 


hamih 


*♦£> hemah 




toujours (tout) 


hater 




jja { *-=> hader 


present 


hia 




*a=» haiah 


serpent 


hamin 




t5 *=» hami 


chaud 


hobesia 




UM*.t» habs 


prison (emprisonne) 


dibe 




i^i debu 


loup 


damia 




I a dammu 


sang 


daman 




( ■ ^Ixij zaman 


terns 


dobal 


j^i daval 




couroie 


dakia 




</j zaki 


pur 


ras 


*\j rah 




chemin 


remona 




(. ^U, ram man 


grenade 


re J 


jl, raz 




raisin 


raba 




vl, rabb 


grand 


takar 




j$2> zakar 


male 


sareh 




_^i; sharru 


mechant 


sakina 




(j*£«« sikkin 


couteau 


schmaha 




U*» sama 


le ciel 


schemsia 




*-£ shamu 


soleil 


schoka 




Oyw suk 


marche 


schedjrai 




^■st^ shajru 


arbre 


schaptina 




ilXi<& shafat 


levre 



THE PAHLVI VOCABULARY OF ANQUETIL DU PERRON. 



321 



Pahlvi. 


Persian, 


Arabic. 


French. 


scharita 




clo Jm shariat 


ordre (loi) 




schenat 




(IXaaw sanot 


annee 




schabha 


*_vi shab 




nocturne (nuit) 




kamria 




^♦» kamru 


lune 




kokba 




<r*£yJ kaukab 


astre 




kadba 
keta 




V^-^ kadbu 
<-^\.Z$ kitab 


mensonge 
livre 




kof 

kand 

kalba 


<Xo kunad 


CJIS kaf 
V^ r kalb 


montagne (nom d'une 

il fait 

chien 


montagne) 


kasra 




j-te* kasr 


etage (palais) 




gandjober 
lelia 


ji^lojif ganjavar 


*XJ laila 


tresorier 
nuit 




lesan 
la 




(j_\U«.i lisan 
iJ la 


langue 
non 




metera 




jhsc matar 


pluie 




mia 




l*> ma 


eau 




malkonta 
malka 




d^xLo malkut 
J^-La malku 


royaute 
roi 




mazdobar 

malahi 

men 


j2*'y* mazdur 


*aL* milhu 
Q,ro min 


porte-faix 

sel 

de 




medina 




nJ-jtS^o madinah 


ville 




mazina 




Q_}'j"*"o mizan 


balance 




nera 




^.xj nairu 


feu 




neka 

nemra 

varta 


sUJ nigah 


j+j namru 
i;5 vardu 


vue 

tigre (leopard) 

fleur 




jedeman 


^ <Xj yad i man 


Aj yad 


main (ma main) 





T T 



322 



IN THE FOLLOWING LIST EXTRACTED FROM THE FIRHANG JIHANGIRI. 



Pahlvi. 


Persian. 


Arabic. 


French. 




aasim 




(•Jact aasim 


eleve 




aahi 


y&>\ ahu 




cerf 




arshik 


,iC«, rishk 




envie 




andajah 


xiytXJl andishah 




pensee 




damn 


^jl ji dar an 




dedans 




dir 


j&* dir 




loin 




kalub 


JuJLT kalbud 




corps 




kata 




ta=i khatu 


lettre missive 




kamikht 


dXix-ol amikht 




mele 




mad 


j^Lo madar 




mere 




roj 


jij ™z 




jour 











328 



No. III. 

LIST OF PAHLVI WORDS WHICH ARE NOT CONTAINED IN THE VOCABULARY 
OF ANQUETIL DU PERRON, EXTRACTED FROM THE FOURTH SECTION OF 
THE APPENDIX TO THE FIRHANG JIHANGIRI. 



Aasim, exalted. 

Aafaringan, one of the nusks of the Zend. 

Aahi, a deer. 

Aayishm, moonshine. 

Aradush, a particular sin of a heinous nature. 

Arshik, envy. 

Urmud, a pear. 

Uraur, plants, vegetables. 

Arvis, a tablet of stone. 

Azarik, male. 

Asud, abstinent, virtuous. 

Ashtau, haste, speed. 

Ashu, paradise. 

Agirift, a particular sin. 

Alka, the earth. 

An, a mother. 

Antunitam, to have. 

Andajah, thought. 

Angapir, a grape. 

Udurdun, to die. 

Uzayish, increase. 

Avizah, sincere, pure. 

Ayardah, the commentary of the Zend. 

Irikan, men. 

Iri, a man. 

Bazra, seed. 

Bazindar, a lattice. 

Paptaras, a retribution for evil. 

Patimar, haste, speed. 

Pala, calling out, noise. 



Ped, a father. 

Pasanitam, to throw, to scatter. 

Pasta, perseverance. 

Pus, a son. 

Paku, a priest. 

Pag, a date tree. 

Pagvi, a priest. 

Panam, the cloth placed over the mouth 
when reading the Zend. 

Panik, a prune. 

Popishmin, a helmet. 

Puzhdas, pure. 

Paitia, a message. 

Tarsustudan, the reading of the Vandidad, 
in order to allow the spirit of the dead to 
quit the neighbourhood of the body. 

Tarmunishn, wickedness. 

Tuma, garlic. 

Jazango, an attendant on the Pyraea. 

Jatrah, polluted, stained. 

Jaja, an eagle. 

Juchin, a tumour. 

Jih, a prostitute. 

Jahishn, nature, quality. 

Jihmarz, a frequenter of prostitutes. 

Chichist, a mountain. 

Kharah, a woman. 

Khurih, light. 

Danaminukhird, one of the nusks of theZend. 

Durun, a particular prayer. 



324 PAHLVI WORDS NOT IN VOCABULARY OF ANQ. DU PERRON. 



ion. 



Darun, within, in. 

Das, that. 

Dushvargar, mountainous. 

Daknia, a date tree. 

Dim in, I. 

Doprub, evil. 

Dah, ^ . 

Ti h 'r\ f P arf i c ^ es °t negati 

Dir, distant. 

Daima, splendour, light. 

Dina, a judicial decision. 

Rawka, laying. 

Roj, a day. 

Zofak, a raining cloud. 

Zika, a mother. 

Satina, a lip. 

Sapitaminu, God. 

Sanhana, the world. 

Siratir, an arrow. 

Sazda, a culprit. 

Sahistan, to fear. 

Sia, the breast. 

Shaigan, ample. 

Shatan, a year. 

Shatmin, a seat, a carpet to sit on 

Shanunitan, to write. 

Kalu, kalub, the body. 

Kata, a letter. 

Kamtaran, a pear. 

Karik, a hen. 

Kamikht, mixed. 

Kozbarta, coriander seed. 



Kahist, a stone. 

Gabmin, the skin. 

Gabka, grass. 

Gumashun, they. 

Guna, a lamb. 

Mad, a mother. 

Mazdistan, pure, free from sin. 

Makir, the day after to-morrow. 

Madmunitan, to fear. 

Marguziran, a capital crime. 

Mizhu, a kind of grain. 

Mastah, force, violence. 

Mug, a date tree. 

Manash, the heart, the mind. 

Mahist, weighty. 

Niushad, he learns, he teaches. 

Vadyah, useless, trifling. 

Vazhah, a word. 

Vicharishan, to lessen. 

Var, the breast. 

Varzanitan, to go. 

Vishadan, to open. 

Hadukht, one of the nusks of the Zend. 

Hak, an egg. 

Havush, kindred. 

Havin, the first Gah. 

Hatan, to give. 

Hajim, I give. 

Hajid, he gives. 

Hubasim, a tooth. 

Husrub, good, distinguished. 

Hib, end. 



THE END. 



London : 

Printed by A. & R. Spottiswoode, 

New-Street- Square. 



A ~N?\ . 
Phabyivoi/oin/. 



***. 


■?1* 


■f t 


^f^iZ^ Jf )(.v/\ 


A 


9 V 


9 




9 S<} 9 9 9 1 y yj 


B 


a & 


c\ 


^ q ^j 


7717^77/ 


G- 
D 




V -cy, 


v 


^' J } 3 ^ 

* # 
/ 


H 
Z 


H H 


$ 


w 


# # ^ H # s 


CH 


hi 




/TA-V 


^-n* * 


l 

I 


7* y 




L, 6« 




K 
L 


7 ? 

.5 > 






■v V 

o 6 


y y y ^ cy uy ^3 
c 9 ^ C\> 


m: 
s 

A IN 






r 




r 

TS 
KJH 
R 

SH 


Z 7 


/? 


A 


f t~*bh />^ // /> M \ + f X1 " 


TH 


' Fr/rrrb Mbm : OLv J ' Joou^: oLvs In. 
LtXbrta. Jol.30.jfi. *tt 


; . vTr$blU& 


FromZlwlvns , ~ExpbiocubionioUs p~u vlaru vs 








/Wm*^a iy h 


faUm&njttt 





< cQ l_ 




4 v 

<J Id L. 



<3 <^ ^ 



Q> ^ ^ 






O p. 



<^ co [— V b 









^ 

I 



r CD } dUL. |<) 

<3 pq f_ <| p£j If S3 

"3^ X ^ S~~ 









■*■ --4 



< 5 z I'l 



* r 
< ^ 



^ 



- L. " cr ^ 



J" 



'I 



M 



<1 






« J b- > * 

C L. ^ £*- ~ |- 



* E 



m 






^ o ^^ e- 

* ^ Q ^ '" =° * 



- CH ^ 



E 



jo O o ^ U #3 $ ^ Q- *Z * ^ 

va ^ f r ca ^0 x< 0~ ^ -^ K^ 

^^r^ co(5ro) V o<T3->x 0< 



^ ^ co ^ 



tf 



£ £ <>tf jJ H o 



| ^ pq ^ p pq 



l*% ^ w 



r3 



M Hi N fc efl o n, 



£ o> rt ~|~h 



s 



1 



:0- 



k. 



"1 ^ ^ m t ^ 

^ ^ ^r > v^ ^ 









3 p" OT) C3 









p ^ o- r-^ 



< 



o ^ 



ru 






53j® n ^ $1 >:r , c 



^ 



^»^ 



VWipvouir 



,,„ 



wvifis'vpj' 



oannj' 



< 








-o— 






^r 


v^ 




5 

X 




3 
9 


i- 

•— > 


O-^ 




VJ 

U 




> 


^ 




<1 


pq 


o fi 


H 


FN 


s 




i— i 


h- 1 


q 


3 


fe 


o 


PM 


Q> 


& 


iZJ 


H 


Id 


^ 




<<- 




On ^ 


^ 


t> 










vj 


^ 


V 


vs 




C 




c^ 


^ 


h 


V^ 




< 


cd 


O S> 


UJ 


> 


X 






^O 


^> 


^ 


^ 


vs 


SL> 


^ 




<y 


Q^ 


K 


V- 




er 


CD 


u o 


m 




D 
□ 




- 




~7 


5. 


X 






t 








r-j 


H 


n 
>- 









> 

> 






o 



/ - 



< 

- > 



"X 






r 



CT 
^3 






^ v o. ^ ^ «- °- n w ^z^/ ^ ^ ^ @ ^ t Ux i^rf "« 



a* 



^ 



< ffl 3 



S t> « W i3 



^ ^ ^ c^ 



FM 



o» 



PH CC 



H 



S 

1 















^ 



p" 







•infod iy GJM,i>naMdel. 



Y 



OAK Q ; 

i'A T fc 6 [TO 

y/xy y| O \ O C| H 

[Jo K pH t H/> 

q J ^ : vi O Av O // / A 

P-vrA^vA / o /v 

Efvf i/v 



o 






mr A3 

1 i 



it 



^ 



' 1 <T- 



I <FM KOJ I kO E V^I-TOfJL 
|^onOr:X.OT/\C\>|o^q« 

rfcllO:|<|Uo.;KPkHP/f 
A©3HIA>l.v\OT^>^ l 14* 

bf:E XrpvT/\M; 10 /v : -£ - 

JP3' V 1: V 1-3 V 1.|A43N3 /NA I 
■.|A*.-io r \oPi <H. :v ia^3 

'1111111 



(rre&/c dlphoolefc. 



Phoenician . 












^Ancient ImcrzpUo/ti 



V^O Hnn , q 

7 



— =si~ — ] — : ^Z~___^____^_~^— — = 

Oto/vA.TV^AMAoT^M-PO)! 

;( A-PA/^^opjOM TA P/J |op 
v A/A.rpo t E^o^(/vKo/V. 
'AP/^o-t-^^^OAA-AIAO^p 
\/oAA- o ^TAf^£pSKop 
O M. 



—J 



P^ VKffo/vv^A/o^TOTyf 



Greek. 



o/t/iyTO«do£/wxi&?NSKmTos4£f>ism 






T'TJarthvlowiiw Zzikoq, 



jfrmded ty (IMilbrumdd. 



O A K O, A ! ;< o 

>| O Mid |^a 3 
M TIS O [TO 

//vf v, O )| O <] n 

£7° K PH t H/> 

P ^ T H P ■ I o r ■' K 

P v r/\ /v A / o a/ 




' 






9/1 /VOJ I |<0 £\ / M|.-TO 
O^O^Of.'XOT^o^c]: 

r&iio:/(Mo.:Kp&KB 

••hiv\£1 9 o 1 



-From 30 f 1 Vol ■ Mem : de> I 'Mood. • de-s 7?ir?or^>. ' 



Jrom Jfiugho'.t Jlruvlysw of the* Gree/c oityfablefr. 



C^. <^ QSJ 



X 



a; 
<2> 

ITS 

V" 
<C\A 



CO 



a: 

?~ 

> 

oo 
"A 
O 
rr\ 



> 



PA 
X 

o 



ft 



S 



I 



CO 

> 







c 

X 

£ 



c<\ 



s: 



> 

C 

cc 



> 

CO 

(X 

e 

co 

H 



> ^ 
> 



X 

ON 



co 

>-- 

X 
X 

rr\ Cc 



> 



cc <^ 

C > 



> 







x s 






^\ s: 



£ > 

^ > 









cc 



> > 

> > 

> >^ 

E > 

T? C7 

^ > 



n\ 



> 

t— X 
> £ 



> 



C 



•• 

X 

X 



cc. 

^> 

cx, 

s: 
x 

On 

sz 
X 
> 



m. — 
?c —_ ^ 
D 

pa 



cc x 

x o 

— n\ 

ON » 

E *- 

CX ^ 

rs> C7 

(X — 

S > 

— ^A 



X 



o 
rx 



cc 



C7 
> 



> <<\ 

OX fO 

x a; 

> co 

— o 

> CC 

r- >• 

r-' > 






cc 
x 

c? 



x ™ 
v- x> 

X > 
> ^ 

ro 






cc 
>- 

£ > 

>. n> 

"^ /A 

> * 

fX X 

r- rrs 

n> — 

.. X 

— > 
>- " 






CX 



> 



> 



X 

> 

o 



> 



c^ 






rx 
> 



n\ • ■ 
a > 
TS © 

X 

> 



> 



> 

r\ 
as 






= S s 



cc 

r— 
HA 

X 
> 



ns 



> 

X ~ 



> i- 



> ^ 

> • 

■- 3: 

^" ex 

> D 

^X 

> 

x: 



«i 






> > 

i— C7 






> 



x~ 
<^ 

TV >- 

(X <^ 

xi cr 

^ CO 

> D 

c rx 

■■ >- 



a 
> 



x. 

> 

X 



^cx - 

^r > 






CO 
X 

>• 

co 
c 

a: 
>~ 

>' 



Ti 



a; 
x 



v- 
IX 



o 



7S" 

>- 



C7 



c 

CC 
IX 



fY\ ^X 

-0 a; > 

> © C7 

CA X ^ 

- 00 



oo t 

s5\ ■- 

C7 ^~ 

— riN 

x: -^ 

as <y> 



<x> 

X 

> 



> 

CO 



^\ — 



ex 
<T 

C7 
> 

ns 
>• 

> 



o 

> 

X 



■J > 

CX 



^ a^ 



> ? ^ 



? 5 



^ o > 

> <* u 



CX 
CO 



/\ 

X 

> 



o 

^ 



c 
CX 

=x 

r- 
CX 



CD 



> 
> r 

rx 



CTA - 

> > 



> 



ct: 



rA n\ 

X °° 
> CC. 



> 

(VJ 

2} 
/s 

CX 

>- 
> 

n^ 

n>> 

o 
rh 

-C7 
> 

E 

CC 

> 

"A 

> 



"\ 


^ 




X 


A 


C7 


CO 
tfA 


> 


f-s 




C7 


<c\ 




T" 


X- 


o 


CX 


rA 


> 


> 




o 






£ 


fV 


X 


^x 





CC 




rA 


X 




c<\ 


a 


~7 


DC. 


f\y 


r^ 


> 


X- 


> 


> 




> 


X" 


CC 


> 


>- 


> 


X 


ex 


CO 


cx 


vX 


> 


a 




<CJ 


>. 


r\ 


> 


<A 


> 


cc 


rJ 


TA 




CC 




—? 



_- CA 



^ ^: x: 
> cc. x 

s ^ > 

cc co ^ 
s: iT) s 

X 



> 



X. 

> TS 

> 



(T) ~" 

cc > 

s: co 

X (X, 






CC 






<c- :=\ ^ <<x 

x o I X 

■ ■ ^ 

V > 

>> fa 



cc 



C7 



> 



ex. 

X 




m 
CX 

<CN 

r 

7" 

^A 

> 



-i > 

rO CC 

> s: 

^ >- 

>~ ^ 



oo 
rr\ 

•a 


X 

> 


<N 


rvJ 





n\ 


x> 


\— 


o 


~> 


> 








I 






? 



ul 



o 






CJ « ?2> 



1 



? ? 



^0 



$ £ -f r? y 



in 






W « ^ J^j^jJ 




^ ^ 



5 «l 






3° 3 



o ^ 



ffi H-3 



00 rt 



>q 



FT^S 7 



§ 

§ 

^ 
v 

I 

^ 






S> -^ 



V> 






^ 

3 



in a M 



« 
k 

s 



*s 






S ^ 



^ 









tC 






*5 






g* 



-g 



>& 



s 

* 



IS r^ 
=S .Ho 






*«*- 



1 1 




I V hi i.v 


./ /. /■//.// 


E T .? 




A ST '-57 







1 A 




A "«= 


a ajr <5r 


A 


S\j- 


A 


<y 


A ' v gs 


I $ ■£ 


I 


r' 


I 


y 


I ^ 


I c * 


I 


^ 


I 








\ 


©t 


I O/DO 


U -5 ■© 


u 


V 


IT 


c 


u <s 


u § * 


u 


a 


U 


-&■ 


U c^ 


Bl %\ * 


Rl 


Ri 


im 


Ri JL 


Ri ^ 


Ri 


i. 


Ri 


ZW R! 


Liu ^ *gr 


Lri 


^r 


Lai 


<2 


Lri ^ 


LRI *t 


Lri 


~^k 


E 


z, 


Lri ^? 


E T£ rr 


E 


1 


E 


% 


E ^ 


Al T* ^37 


Oi 


A.i 


p 


Ai ^" f ' 





Ou 


3 









^i 
Au -^to 


Am 5^ "33 


Om 


G5 


Au 


T7 


Am i£-do 


Ah 3T; ^ : 


Oh 


m 


K 


S 


Ah "« : 


K fr TT 


K 


7F 


Kh 


Jj 


K <* 


ksh ^r ?r 


Kh 


-i 


G 


A 


Kh «_, 


Kh JSf tr 


G 


ri 


Gh 


MJ 


G ^ 


e T If 


Gh 


ft 


&H 


» 


Gh "ti 


&H ^ ^ 


N 


2 


Ts 


^ 


N ^, 


N 5- 


'i'SH 


r 


CH 


to 


CH ^ 


Ch ^ =7 


TSH.H 


$L 


Ch.h 


»p 


Ch.h ji^> 


J <§T T 


Tz 
Tzn 




Dz 

T 




J ^ 


Jh £f 51 


NY 


16 


Th 


04' 


Jh tc; 

Cx <g 


D&X i=p ^ 


T 


£ 


Ny 


^ 


DorR s 


3 3T 


TH 


I 


T 


& 


1)11 o 


t t: i 


D 


X" 


Th 


G 


T & 


Th 5 cX 


Dh 


F 


D 


Cj 


T i, 


DorR ^ ^ 


N 


^ 


Dh 


V 


T o, 


»h £ -s- 


T 


VT 


N 


n 


s TIf m 


Th 


a] 


T 


o 


Th u 


T CT T 


D 


*T 


Th 


Q 


D 3 


TH -gp TT 


DH 


^ 


D 


Q 


Dh xj 


11 J ? 


5T 


; 


Dh 


P 


N 03 


I)h Vf §r 


P 


t 


N 


CO 


P ,0 


N «^T *7" 


PH 


n* 


P 




Ph ^ 

B -^^J 


F TT •& 


P 




Ph 


V 


Ph tp 71 


Bh 


3" 


B 


& 


Bh 3 


B ^ T 


M 


4 


Bh 


t> 


M ^ 


Bh *T "*T 


J 


a 


M 


»U 


Y -ssL- 


M JT U 


R 


a 


Y 


=MJ 


R >d 


Y 1} ^7 


L 


a 


R 


O 


L ^ 


R T T 


V 


a 


L 


(^ 


W ^j 


l <3 T 


SH 


ri 


V 


=Ci 


Sh v3 


L 55 ^ 


SH 


<a 


SH 


■s 


Sh ^ 


\v cf T 


S 


^ 


Sh 


<A 


S r -v 


s H "^r 3J 


H 


V 


s 


[0 


H ' 1 ^ 


sn T|" 


K 


$ 


H 


o^ 


Ksh <^ 


s Tf ti 






L 


V 


R [^ 


H £ B- 






Sh 


Jl 


L £ 








R 


&0 


N At j 


• V.S Ti, ,,.'„; .11 , 


y ■■ /.*■<>,*«, 


M 


0. 


R -4 


■■' 1" ■ ■ 


> , 






1 • _, , y /;-,„/ 


. . , . 


■ .. 




X 


C 1 L "H ( 










1 


L < 1 



# i» 



r 

■^ 



$ 

^ 



s 



b 3 

a i 

<3 O 
* -0 






a 






L, n 2 # i 
& * j? P§ 2a 



>2 

o 



^ fl v? 



^ nt^ 



Q**)^ £$ 



-H 8 

o P 



f 43 

yi < 



XO 

X3- 



k J 3 & 1 £ 3 ? 2 i * 8 * 



P. X3 



i. 






« t -^.^ $ £) rt 2 >?, f () ,',; 

»3 2 5 3 <rP 3 * ^ ^ - ' 



* 






£0 V? 
3 



00 

O 

>2 



., £ 



>3 f 

b 5 ° 



-to 
>3 

a 


(To) 



Ff Sj ^ vb 



61 O b 

Ml 



S 



x<? 



<8 



>S 



-^ p^J 



o 

^3 






^l 3 



yp 



>6 



Y 



,^ 



y3 O 



fe 



i 



1> ^ 



V2 ^P 

0< 



ft^a^foS^ao 






c® 






Yi 



% 



>3 
o vs 



# 



S v2 >» ,S x 



K) c? fi H ± 



3 »^ 

h P ® 

K © Xo 

<h si uo 

? -^ ^ 

>§ ^ o 



?1 



Yi' 






v 



I 






er 



'W 



I 4 



IE 15 

Si 



<9 






% 



•fer 

II 



fid 



a3 



^_ 9 



5 ^ft(p 






l 
IT 










^ 



? 



(c- (jzr 









^ IT ^ 



r (o- 'fe 1 <& 




t * £ & £ 

f & feJf & 

Sy. K> IS 1 IF F 



IP 
ill 

P »y tf 



f 

I? 

I 



i 

ikr 

T 

I 

d2 



$ 



P6M tXUJf 6'H \j lt6A,H6L 
H/fUJ-B :-u±} AX H^DUX+ex Uo 
i-+ Xj+ HJI 0+6+ U £J\p\ AJ^ 

A'AHCt fL±t«& + b(XX+ ClUd5«0 
cC^t 1+0? W(U XA+U Atf + \,X 

C^ + d" ft+iJcf Ar/\L6CXyX6 U6dXU + 
Cd-fX H H: K<C+ 6tf++< 1+0 41 Add £6 
irixil ^iHlol6 6t<tl6 If'lAil 
£>x£4 1UX<51 X(tcTA-8<U AXiVx^X 
JULfoCX d<#>X ti.i'A: WUl D6J,<T 
HXGcWB&^tfX 2t£vA6X »£XX6*6XX 
JLAilt ^iC^A^ XxWiXt £6X^X1 
K/JL6JLX HotfrltX d6^XX liXH<tl AXX 
IX.6XX XUA-^CXd £iXX AlllUfAiJ, 

( d6- ^h+^+j t>6cn xjtxx ixx^x 

A (CI IXAlX dAoXX dA-tfXlU tf^XXAX 
-J11- X+C6X X6Xf<S(CX6 l L H^XUM HX 
H-A-J+X W_<$XX abX^XX+fX 



D.N?2. 
Sjoi/oivnt/njs of In/Hvourv WriUnir. 
Ins orivhtms wv un known/ Oi&ra/cftvrs 






PrmtbH o\ J.jffufUnt&neLtZ 



P6±'U ClUJf 6"H (/ XttfX U X 

ju^m :-tfx}u Wxx+ex xxo 

i+ <U+ )\J1 Q+6+ U X'S^i AJC 

XrH l+b? UJ(U (U+U A^ + XX 
rUdAU XU^MM Xd^jU 
l^ + cr rl-t-Xd" An^ji6CX^X6 H6bXLA + 
Cd-F^X HtUcfr 6tf+-K 1+C41 Ux£i 
IfU^l ^iWXoX6 4U16 1^1A6X 
fcx£6 XUX^X UdA-tfcU *«UV±\MJb 
lL$6lt tfc^x U^A: WUx D6X<T 
HXtXo-8a)H^3u Xt>£U6X >£ -Cj^ 6X1 
L\61t W^ XXHXit ^61-VXl 
Xl>A6JuX HotftLU d6HX liX^U AXX 
VX6cVl AcN&tctol iAU AXllO^Jt 
( dtf- >H+y-j >6CH1 £)TXX 1XJTX<S1 
AXX V-Lii^X dAtfcU djwtox H^cCXXjt 
xJl} 2+C6X X6dp<S(LX6 l L W&\\X Hi 



i > . r<i v .-4 



In/soryofcons wo u>wk/n/owvu Ch/O/rcooto/rs . 



<WvlfA03^j d^J^y <W* si/ of ^ & 6 



w 




s 



"Jj-^M^»^-«s.ll | 










Persian 




Jrtrjn tfu ZcndavusTv tf.dnfitfft? etu^c 



Spe/owwv7is of J}> 
lo/yi/ol/. 



y)aj -*>jS* f O ♦ r ^H l it-**-" fV^^^j^j 
wwj^ t _ t y avpg, ^j*^, fd«f^S v^^. 

r^K^-* .^ru^ fs* ^_« O-c/t r= > — * ♦ ;=* ! 

Inmtht, ifm . of Sir W.J,m,s's Wvrhs 






?as~h/Zvi>. 



) wtfito wwv j,^^<g ^, ^ ^ ^ 



/U^UUjit>[lipt>>ft22ufr/72AUnj^?* j>-a<2) 
/U^??? ^2) jHu/^J/22 u/>i>S jV cS{bf>u 

£ 2 <*(^ *> 1 1 ] 9. U { [h'j» Z2 J b U }iA2/u} ^22/ UVT2«3J^ 



F N°2 
Jiwo-ipliD/hs in, undec^pAcrcd Ckaraelm 

r. 



n K- -W\f T T Tt ve\ «TT ~< ttj -11 

T« ;1'M TiT -fTT fir sT ',' -^ n, ft V \ « | T 



<< y fTi £T « w\ <<jt <{ rTH<~T<T rf l<r~ 
^TET-T^T <( hta«YU< m^KHa< 
ttty<-i<i T t K- ttt~< frT -M\ Ann ht T < T<i 
Hf<^ r\ <c < i.<- <ft -< fTr -U v. fT -<_< < fTH - T~T 
~( tTt r< TTt >w\ «tt < < m K-UTlru-A 

It 



>i?? >-U Vh->J 22.' 2 J> U ^ 2 !A /O ;> tf 

1 ^ p r^\ 



'N 



// S m s s c 7i/>i')y^ s^?*f )y^ ) Jiy? H ?y>)^> U #a jgy<--' r ^Tn 2<-_m -v-j <kj<& tt u~Tr\v »■ 
^ Jj>wJi,4^>>74/>JJa w ^)^^^> Vj ^) Jj £ J>^-pn^ ' i^ tt7 ^r t>Sfe<\Vr<\ << tt 

insj »>^J &dn ->y> J?* ij*? k>j ii hjj^ 



mTfunnn -t<- ttt -<^ jF<M^<-<~<< rr 



Y»Y Y,r r< 



<< m T(~\ YM ryT-^T, yf \ «H 



1-T £t Tr \ ^ K- A Iti E< m \ ^ ^Y ^ItTMiT 

m 5 ~W £VM\Yc£Y£YfY»-W \ Ty Hf £ \ ^ 

•y T l^-lrT\H> r< --v. m ~V TtT < t t SMiTM rrTtr 

(z<\ ^Tt <X< 77 ^<M^-YrY -V HfiT ^ -TtT ^ Wi Tt £T 

-YrT T-r Tt Tn \ ?, m m- <v -j£ \ <=^< Tt ui\ " T 

ar-rr ^y m r< < m ^ t t yTt -w ttt<— ^ <( ." g 

Try v < r r ~WKr * ^M Y<-MtT y M ^ ^t ^tT -YtT 






4^ ,«' 



P* 






